UNIVERSITY  OF 

ILLINOIS  LIBRARY 

AT  URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 

ACES 


NOTICE:  Return  or  renew  all  Library  Materials!  The  Minimum  Fee  for 
each  Lost  Book  is  $50.00. 

The  person  charging  this  material  is  responsible  for 
its  return  to  the  library  from  which  it  was  withdrawn 
on  or  before  the  Latest  Date  stamped  below. 

Theft,  mutilation,  and  underlining  of  books  *'''™™l!"  **'*"' 
nary  action  and  may  result  in  <«smissalfrom  the  Un.vers.ty. 
To  renew  call  Telephone  Center,  333-8400 

.  DIVERSITY    OF    ILLINOIS    LIBRARY    AT    URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 


L161— O-1096 


JUN  1  6  2005 


UNiVERSJTYGFjyJNOIS 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 


Agricultural  Experiment  Station, 


BULLETIN    NO.   90. 


FATTENING    STEERS    OF    THE    VARIOUS 
MARKET  GRADES. 


BY  HERBERT  W.  MUMFORD 


URBANA,   DECEMBER,    1903. 


SUMMARY  OF  BULLETIN  No.  90. 

OBJECT. — To  determine  the  relative  rapidity,  extent,  nature,  and  cost  of 
gains  with  the  six  grades  of  feeding  cattle,  viz.,  fancy  selected,  choice,  good, 
medium,  common,  and  inferior.  Page  157 

PLAN. — Sixteen  steers  of  each  grade  were  fed  alike  from  November  29,  1902, 
to  May  27,  1903,  a  period  of  179  days.  Four  pigs  followed  each  of  the  six  lots 
of  steers.  The  feeds  used  were  cracked  corn,  corn  and  cob  meal,  cotton  seed 
meal,  old  process  linseed  oil  meal,  clover  hay,  alfalfa,  timothy  hay,  and  corn 
stover.  Page  158 

RAPIDITY  OF  GAINS. — Average  daily  gain  per  steer  in  pounds:  Fancy,  2.57; 
choice,  2.54;  good,  2.34;  medium,  2.13;  common,  2.21;  inferior,  1.1*6.  Total 
gain  in  pork  in  pounds  for  each  lot:  Fancy,  419;  choice,  500;  good,  475; 
medium,  520;  common,  420;  inferior,  480.  Page  168 

ECONOMY  OF  GAINS. — Average  digestible  dry  matter  in  pounds  required 
for  producing  a  pound  of  gain  in  beef:  Fancy,  9.95;  choice,  12.09;  good,  12.08; 
medium,  13.05;  common,  12.00;  inferior,  12.93.  Number  of  pounds  gain  per 
bushel  of  corn  consumed:  Fancy,  9.74;  choice,  7.97;  good,  7.99;  medium,  7.45; 
common,  8.13;  inferior,  7.61.  Page  170 

COST  OF  GAINS  PER  POUND,  AVERAGE. — Fancy,  $0.067;  choice,  $0.082;  good, 
$0.082;  medium,  $0.088;  common,  $0i081 ;  inferior,  $0.087.  Page  170 

NATURE  OF  GAINS. — As  a  result  of  feeding  the  16  fancy  feeders  (lot  :1 ) 
until  finished  there  was  only  one  steer  that  would  not  grade  as  prime.  This 
steer  lacked  slightly  in  quality,  but  principally  in  condition,  and  graded  as 
choice.  After  slaughtering,  the  beef  experts  in  Armour  &  Company's  city  beef 
department  graded  all  the  carcasses  as  No.  1.  Page  180 

Of  the  16  choice  feeders  (lot  2)  fourteen  finished  as  prime,  one  as  choice, 
and  one  as  good.  All  the  carcasses  graded  as  No.  1  beef. 

Of  the  16  good  feeders  (lot  3)  three  finished  as  prime,  five  as  choice,  and 
eight  as  good.  All  the  carcasses  graded  as  No.  1. 

Of  the  16  medium  feeders  (lot  4)  one  finished  as  choice,  four  as  good,  eight 
as  medium,  and  three  as  common.  Four  of  the  carcasses  in  this  lot  graded  as 
No.  1  light  and  the  remainder  as  No.  2  tops. 

Of  the  16  common  feeders  (lot  5)  five  finished  the  test  as  good,  six  as 
medium,  and  five  as  common  beeves.  The  grading  of  the  beef  was  the  same  as  that 
in  lot  4,  namely,  four  carcasses  graded  as  No.  1  light,  and  twelve  as  No.  2  tops. 

Of  the  16  inferior  feeders  (lot  6)  four  finished  as  good,  six  as  medium,  and 
six  as  common.  Six  carcasses  graded  as  No.  1  light,  nine  as  No.  2  tops,  and 
one  as  No.  3  beef. 

PERCENTAGES  OF  DRESSED  BEEF. — Average  percentage  carcass  to  live  weight: 
Fancy,  61.62;  choice,  61.52;  good,  60.74;  medium,  59.70;  common,  59.88;  infe- 
rior, 59.36.  Page  178 

PROFIT  AND  Loss. — Market  value  as  feeders  November  29,  1902:  Fancy, 
$4.75;  choice,  $4.55;  good,  $4.20;  medium,  $3.85;  common,  $3.60;  inferior,  $3.35 
per  hundred  weight.  Page  185 

Market  Value  of  Finished  Cattle  on  Basis  of  Steady  Market  from  November 
29,  1902,  to  May  28,  1903. — Fancy,  $7.00;  choice,  $6.90;  good,  $6.50;  medium, 
$5.80;  common,  $550;  inferior,  $5.40.  Page  190 

Profit  per  Steer  on  Basis  of  Steady  or  Stationary  Market. — Fancy,  $18.15; 
choice,  $15.67;  good,  $11.56;  medium,  $4.41;  common,  $4.09;  inferior,  $5.48. 

Page  191 

Actual  Selling  Prices  per  cwt.  when  Marketed  May  28,  1903,  "Falling 
Market." — Fancy,  $5,40;  choice,  $5.40;  good,  $5.15;  medium,  $4.90;  common, 
$4.80;  inferior,  $4.80.  Page  190 

Loss  per  Steer  on  Basis  of  Actual  or  Falling  Market. — Fancy,  $3.80 ;  choice, 
$7.44;  good,  $7.36;  medium,  $7.95;  common,  $5.26;  inferior.  $2.37  Page  191 

DECLINE  IN  MARKET  FROM  BEGINNING  TO  CLOSE  OF  EXPERIMENT. — Fancy, 
$1.60;  choice,  $1.50;  good,  $1.35;  medium,  $0.90;  common,  $0.70;  inferior,  $0.60 
per  hundred  weight.  Page  194 

Conclusions  Page  2O1 


156 


FATTENING   STEERS    OF   THE    VARIOUS 
MARKET  GRADES. 

BY  HERBERT  W.  MUMFORD,  CHIEF  IN  ANIMAL  HUSBANDRY. 
INTRODUCTION. 

In  Bulletin  No.  78  issued  by  this  Station  about  a  year  ago,  the 
writer  illustrated  and  described  the  various  market  classes  and  grades 
of  cattle  as  seen  at  our  leading  live  stock  markets.  The  two  market 
classes  receiving  the  greatest  share  of  attention  were  beef  cattle  of 
the  prime,  choice,  good,  medium,  and  common  rough  grades:  and  feed- 
ers of  the  fancy  selected,  choice,  good,  medium,  common,  and  inferior 
grades.  Each  grade  of  the  fat  cattle  class  was  considered  in  all  its 
relations  to  other  grades  of  the  same  class,  while  each  grade  of  feeders 
was  described  by  comparing  it  with  a  standard  grade  of  feeding  cattle 
whose  points  of  excellence  were  most  uniform  and  characteristic.  Thus 
it  will  be  seen  on  the  one  hand  that  no  attempt  was  madt  to  indicate 
from  what  grades  of  feeders,  prime,  choice,  good,  or  other  grades  of 
steers  are  developed  or  on  the  other  how  inferior,  common,  medium, 
good,  choice,  and  fancy  selected  feeding  cattle  may  be  expected  to  feed 
out  or  finish  in  the  feed  lot.  In  a  general  way,  men  who  make  a  business 
of  buying  and  finishing  feeders,  handle  largely  one  grade  of  cattle. 
They  determine  approximately  their  grade  when  sold  by  knowing  how 
close  to  the  top  of  the  market  they  sell. 

It  is  believed  that  all  who  finish  cattle,  either  of  their  own  breed- 
ing or  those  purchased  as  feeders  in  the  market,  will  become  more 
intelligent  producers  if  they  become  more  familiar  with  the  possibilities 
of  the  various  grades  of  feeding  cattle.  There  is  much  of  pecuniary 
value  to  the  cattle  feeder  in  knowing  the  correlation  between  the 
various  grades  of  feeding  cattle  and  the  several  grades  of  fat  cattle. 

Never  did  the  results  of  an  experiment  in  cattle  feeding  require 
more  careful  study  and  more  serious  thought  than  those  to  be  presented 
in  this  bulletin.  The  reader  is  cautioned  not  to  read  parts  of  the  bulle- 
tin and  draw  hasty  conclusions,  but  to  read  and  re-read  all  of  it  carefully 
and  thoughtfully.  An  effort  has  been  made  to  present  the  facts  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  avoid  the  possibility  of  the  forming  of  misleading 
conclusions. 

OBJECT  OF  THE  EXPERIMENT. 

The  object  of  this  experiment  was  to  secure  data  for  the  accurate 
comparison  of  the  six  standard  grades  of  feeding  steers  with  respect  to 
the  following  points: 

1.  The  extent  or  quantity  of  gains. 

2.  The  rapidity  of  gains. 

3.  The  economy  of  gains  as  measured  by  feed  consumed. 

157 


158  BULLETIN  No.  90.  [December, 

4.  The  nature  of  the  gain  as  indicated  by  the  different  grades 
during  the  feeding  period  and  as  measured  by  their  re-grading  as  beef  or 
fat  cattle  at  the  end  of  the  experiment,  the  percentages  of  dressed  beef 
and  the  percentages  of  fat. 

5.  The  comparative  quality  of  the  beef  as  expressed  by  the  grading 
of  the  carcasses  after  slaughter. 

6.  The  relative  profit  to  the  feeder  after  considering  all  elements 
of  outgo  and  income, — that  is,  the  initial  cost  of  the  various  grades  of 
feeders,  their  relative  extent  and  quality  of  gain,  the  cost  of  feed,  and 
the  comparative  selling  price  of  the  various  grades  as  marketed, — first 
under  normal   conditions,   that   is,   a   steady  market;    second,  under 
abnormal  conditions,  that  is,  a  falling  market. 

In  the  interest  of  brevity  these  various  points  will  be  alluded  to 
throughout  the  text  as  the  "extent,"  "rapidity,"  "nature,"  "economy," 
and  "cost"  of  gain,  and  the  "profit"  or  the  "loss"  in  feeding. 

TABLE  1. — GRADES  OF  FEEDING  CATTLE,  BEEF  OR  FAT  CATTLE,  AND  CARCASSES  ON 

CHICAGO  MARKET. 


Feeding  Cattle 

Beef  or  Fat  Cattle 

Carcasses 

Fancy 
Choice 
Good 
Medium 
Common 
Inferior 

Prime 
Choice 
Good 
Medium 
Common  Rough 

No.  1 

No.  1  Light 
No.  2  Tops 
No.  2 
No.  3 
Canning  Stock 

The  practical  feeder  very  much  desires  to  know  the  relative  economy 
of  production  with  these  six  different  grades  of  feeders,  and  also  the 
grade  of  finished  cattle  that  may  confidently  be  expected  from  each  in 
order  that  he  may  calculate  which  will  be  most  profitable  after  consider- 
ing the  greater  initial  cost  and  the  relatively  higher  selling  price  of  the 
better  grades.  It  was  to  answer  these  questions  that  this  experiment  was 
undertaken. 

PLAN  OF  THE  EXPERIMENT. 

The  animals  used  were  sixteen  steers  of  each  of  the  various  grades  of 
feeding  cattle  which  were  placed  in  feed  lots  and  fed  under  uniform  con- 
ditions; therefore  this  experiment  involved  the  feeding  of  six  car-loads 
of  cattle.  The  fancy  selected,  the  choice,  the  good,  the  medium,  the 
common,  and  the  inferior  grades,  as  described  in  Bulletin  No.  78  of  this 
Station  were  each  represented. 

Experiments  have  been  conducted  with  a  few  animals  which  have 
thrown  some  light  on  this  subject,  but  never  before  have  enough  animals 
been  used  to  eliminate  individuality  and  thus  make  it  safe  to  accept  the 
conclusions  reached  without  a  certain  amount  of  reserve. 

The  choice,  good,  medium,  common,  and  inferior  feeders  used  in  this 


1903.]  FATTENING  STEERS.  159 

experiment  were  purchased  in  the  Union  Stock  Yards,  Chicago,  the 
fancy  selected  in  Missouri.  These  were  all  strictly  grass  cattle  as  none 
had  received  grain  while  on  grass.  They  were  purchased  in  October, 
and  shipped  to  the  University  farm  where  they  were  all  turned  together 
on  pasture,  remaining  there  without  grain  for  about  a  month.  This 
placed  all  the  cattle  to  be  used  in  the  experiment  under  uniform  condi- 
tions for  a  month  and  furnished  us  an  opportunity  to  become  more 
familiar  with  the  individuality  of  the  steers.  They  were  taken  from  the 
pastures  and  confined  in  the  feed  lots  about  the  middle  of  November, 
when  they  were  gradually  accustomed  to  a  light  ration  of  broken  corn 
together  with  all  the  hay  they  would  eat.  During  the  last  week  in 
November  the  various  grades  were  selected  without  attempting  to  place 
them  strictly  in  the  grades  for  which  they  were  originally  bought. 
When  the  steers  were  purchased,  sixteen  or  more  of  each  grade  were 
selected.  A  few  of  the  steers  changed  sufficiently  within  the  month  in- 
tervening between  purchasing  and  placing  in  the  feed  lot  to  change 
slightly  their  grade.  In  the  main,  however,  they  were  ultimately  assigned 
to  those  grades  which  they  were  bought  to  represent.  A  systematic  effort 
was  made  to  secure  native  cattle  in  all  the  grades  for  this  test.  It  was 
found,  however,  that  the  offerings  at  the  Yards,  while  large,  were 
still  not  sufficient  to  fill  accurately  the  various  grades  without  taking 
an  occasional  range  steer.  The  few  range  steers  that  were  selected  were 
practically  as  useful  for  the  object  of  the  test  as  were  the  natives,  since 
they  were  quiet  and  had  apparently  been  previously  accustomed  to  grain 
feeding  during  the  preceding  winter. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  experiment  the  cattle  were  examined  by  a 
committee  of  experts  from  the  Chicago  Stock  Yards,  consisting  of  Mr. 
John  T.  Alexander,  of  Alexander,  Ward  and  Conover;  Mr.  George  W. 
Shannon,  of  Shannon  Brothers,  and  Mr.  James  Brown,  expert  cattle 
buyer  for  Armour  &  Co.,  whose  judgment  was  asked  with  reference  to 
the  grading  and  the  market  value  of  each  grade.  The  same  committee 
visited  the  Experiment  Station  at  intervals  of  one  month  for  the  purpose 
of  determining  the  improvement  of  each  grade  in  value  per  hundred 
pounds.  The  author  desires  to  acknowledge  his  indebtedness  to  these 
gentlemen  for  their  faithful  and  efficient  services.  Their  expert  judg- 
ment has  been  of  the  greatest  value  and  importance  to  this  experiment. 

The  market  at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment  was  fixed  upon  as  the 
basis  for  all  values  assigned  to  the  cattle.  This  was  done  in  order  to 
free  the  valuations  from  fluctuations  in  the  market,  thus  making  it  pos- 
sible to  secure  data  on  basis  of  a  steady  market.  This  committee  contin- 
ued their  work  up  to  and  including  the  time  of  marketing.  As  the  cattle 
were  weighed  every  two  weeks  and  as  a  careful  record  was  kept  of  the 
rations  fed,  it  is  possible  to  determine  at  what  time  the  various  loads 
could  have  been  marketed  to  best  advantage. 


160  BULLETIN  No.  90.  [December, 

It  is  advisable  to  give  a  brief  description  of  the  cattle  in  each  grade 
at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment.  For  convenience  the  various  grades 
were  given  lot  numbers  as  follows: 

Lot  1.     Fancy  selected  feeders. 

Lot  2.     Choice  feeders. 

Lot  3.     Good  feeders. 

Lot  4.     Medium  feeders. 

Lot  5.     Common  feeders. 

Lot  6.     Inferior  feeders. 

LOT  1.     FANCY  SELECTED. 

It  seemed  impossible  to  find  a  car-load  of  fancy  selected  feeders  on 
the  Chicago  market  during  October,  1902,  hence  it  was  necessary  to  look 
elsewhere  for  them.  They  were  finally  located  on  the  farm  of  Wallace 
Estill  of  Missouri.  It  was  difficult  to  secure  sixteen  cattle  which 
would  in  every  way  meet  the  requirements  of  this  grade.  The  feeding 
qualities  of  the  cattle  selected  to  represent  this  grade  fully  sustained 
judgment  at  the  time  they  were  purchased.  They  contained  nearly  one 
hundred  percent  of  the  blood  of  the  improved  beef  breeds.  The  dams 
were  high  grade  Shorthorn  cows  and  the  sire  a  registered  Hereford. 
With  one  exception  they  bore  the  markings  of  the  Hereford;  this  steer 
resembled  his  Shorthorn  parentage  as  to  markings  and  more  so  as  to  his 
conformation  than  did  the  other  steers  in  this  lot. 

While  there  was  a  slight  lack  of  uniformity  in  size  in  this  load  of 
steer?,  they  possessed  the  quality  and  conformation  that  accompany  the 
typical  beef-bred  steer.  It  is  true  that  they  were  the  youngest  steers, 
as  a  lot,  in  the  test,  being  about  two  years  old  at  the  time  of  marketing. 
It  is  also  true  that  age,  as  well  as  quality,  conformation,  and  condition, 
is  characteristic  of  the  various  grades  of  feeding  cattle.  Usually  when 
the  hotter  grades  of  feeding  cattle  are  selected  for  feeding  they  are 
comparatively  young.  To  make  this  point  more  clear  it  may  be  said  that 
it  would  be  impossible  to  secure  a  two-year-old  inferior  feeder,  as  infe- 
rior steers  of  this  age  would  possess  neither  the  weight  nor  the  flesh 
demanded  in  the  feeder  class.  In  Bulletin  No.  78  feeders  were  described 
as  follows:  "As  a  rule,  we  may  classify  as  feeders,  steers  weighing  900 
pounds  or  more  that  are  eighteen  months  old  or  older,  and  that  are  fleshy 
enough  so  as  not  to  render  an  extended  period  of  low  feeding  necessary." 
Manifestly  the  slower  maturing,  lower  grades  will  always  DC  the  older 
animals  when  feeding  weights  are  attained. 

The_  individual  steers  comprising  this  fancy  grade  possessed  outstand- 
ing quality.  They  were  the  kind  from  which  car-load  show  cattle  are 
produced.  Those  who  have  attempted  to  collect  such  a  group  of  cattle 
know  how  very  scarce  they  are.  Such  feeding  cattle  are  very  seldom  seen 
in  any  of  our  feeding-cattle  markets,  for  when  such  a  bunch  is  known  to 


1903.]  FATTENING  STEERS.  161 

be  for  sale  it  is  usually  eagerly  sought,  hence  it  is  unnecessary  to  ship 
them  to  the  market  to  find  a  buyer.  While  these  steers  had  not  received 
grain  on  grass,  they  were  what  would  be  termed  "fleshy"  feeders.  See 
Plate  1. 

LOT  2.     CHOICE  FEEDERS. 

The  steers  in  this  group  were  unquestionably  choice.  They  possessed 
large  frames  and  perhaps  averaged  six  months  older  than  the  fancy 
selected  lot,  though  still  younger  than  lots  4.  5,  and  6.  Owing  to  their 
more  advanced  age  and  the  appearance  of  being  more  growthy,  this 
load  of  steers  was  frequently  selected  by  experienced  feeders  as  the  best 
calculated  to  produce  the  largest  and  most  rapid  gains  of  any  in  the 
test.  They  were  the  heaviest  cattle  entering  the  tost  and  perhaps, 
everything  considered,  were  carrying  slightly  more  flesh  than  the  others, 
although  lots  1  and  2  were  similar  in  this  regard.  These  were  purchased 
in  the  Union  Stock  Yards,  Chicago,  and  were  the  best  that  had  been 
seen  on  the  market  for  a  considerable  time.  They  were  high-grade  Short- 
horns, uniform  as  to  size,  color,  and  conformation.  Fed  to  a  finish, 
steers  of  such  quality  ought  to  produce  prime  steers  of  sufficient  merit  to 
sell  at  the  top  on  any  ordinary  market.  See  Plate  3. 

LOT  3.     GOOD  FEEDERS. 

The  quality  and  finish  so  manifest  in  the  choice  and  fancy-selected 
lots  were  not  so  much  in  evidence  in  this  group,  although  it  was  easy  to 
see  that  beef  blood  still  predominated.  While  these  cattle  possessed  a 
strong  infusion  of  beef  blood,  they  did  not  meet  the  requirements  of  the 
ideal  feeder  in  type  or  conformation.  They  were  inclined  to  be  up- 
standing, while  some  of  the  steers  were  rather  plain  in  their  rumps. 
They  lacked  that  attractive  uniformity  that  characterized  lots  1  and  2. 
As  to  condition  they  were  hardly  as  fleshy  as  the  grades  already 
described.  It  should  not  be  gathered  from  what  has  been  said  that  these 
were  an  undesirable  lot  of  feeding  cattle,  for  they  were  not.  In  fact, 
cattle  of  their  quality  are  not  at  all  plenty  in  the  markets  of  our  country, 
and  can  only  be  produced  by  the  use  of  bulls  of  some  of  the  beef  breeds. 
See  Plate  5. 

LOT  4.    MEDIUM  FEEDERS. 

Undoubtedly  the  most  noticeable  characteristic  of  this  group  was  its 
lack  of  uniformity  in  color.  This  suggests  their  probable  mixed  breed- 
ing. The  lack  of  uniformity  is  not  by  any  means  the  main  difference1 
between  this  and  the  better  grades.  A  closer  study  reveals  a  coarseness 
and  angularity  not  at  all  characteristic  of  those  of  better  quality.  There 
is  a  plain,  old  style  appearance  about  them  that  is  very  evident.  The 
cattle  appeared  to  be  close  to  three  years  old.  Experienced  feeders 
would  select  noAv  and  again  a  steer  from  this  lot  that  would  be  expected 
to  make  large  gains,  and  occasionally  one  that  would  finish  quite  smooth, 


162  BULLETIN  No.  90.  [December, 

but  the  majority  would  always  remain  rather  coarse,  rough,  and  paunchy. 
It  should  be  said  that  this  lot  did  not  contain  a  steer  that  failed  to 
show  evidence  of  improved  beef  blood,  although  the  predominating 
blood  seemed  to  be  native  or  unimproved,  with  occasionally  a  dash  of  the 
blood  of  some  one  of  the  dairy  breeds.  See  Plate  7. 

LOT  5.    COMMON  FEEDERS. 

This  group  showed  but  a  very  small  percentage  of  beef  blood. 
Native  and  unimproved  blood  predominated.  There  was  no  uniformity 
in  color  and  every  steer  showed  a  lack  of  both  quality  and  conformation. 
The  steers  were  rather  coarse  boned  and  large  headed,  and  were  plain 
ihroughout.  They  did  not  all  have  similar  faults,  but  all  were  noticeably 
deficient  in  some  particular.  They  were  the  kind  that  result  from  the 
somewhat  common  practice  of  indiscriminate  breeding  and  the  too  com- 
mon practice  of  breeding  from  inferior  grade  bulls.  See  Plate  9. 

LOT  6.     INFERIOR  FEEDERS. 

There  are  so  many  standards  by  which  feeding  cattle  might  be  desig- 
nated as  inferior  that  it  is  well  to  be  explicit  in  specifying  the  standard 
employed  in  the  selection  of  the  cattle  comprising  this  group.  It  was 
not  that  they  should  be  steers  carrying  a  high  percentage  of  dairy  blood, 
although  two  or  three  steers  in  this  group  were  undoubtedly  strongly 
dairy  bred.  Nor  was  it  that  they  should  be  beef-bred  steers  of  faulty 
conformation  and  lacking  in  constitution.  An  effort  was  made  to  select 
cattle  inferior  in  quality  and  conformation  from  the  standpoint  of 
beef  breeding,  that  is,  those  possessing  very  little,  if  any,  of  the  blood 
of  any  of  the  improved  beef  breeds.  This  was  a  more  difficult  task  than 
would  seem  to  those  who  have  not  attempted  it.  The  majority  of  this 
group  were  selected  from  a  consignment  of  Virginia  grass  cattle  shipped 
to  the  Chicago  market.  They  showed  no  evidences  of  beef  blood  and 
every  evidence  of  being  scrubs.  As  such  they  were  plain  cold-blooded 
creatures,  not  at  all  pleasing  to  look  upon.  See  Plate  11. 

In  general,  the  basis  of  selection  in  all  these  lots  was  quality,  or  beef 
breeding.  In  each  instance  where  the  grade  called  for  well-bred  beef 
steers  they  were  selected  not  only  with  regard  to  their  breeding,  but  care 
was  taken  that  they  should  possess  the  qualifications  which  should  accom- 
pany well-bred  steers.  In  no  case  were  steers  selected  to  fill  any  of  the 
grades  that  showed  evidence  of  being  poor  and  unprofitable  gainers,  and 
all  were  required  to  show  equal  evidence  of  health  and  thrift. 

By  referring  to  Table  3  it  will  be  seen  that  the  initial  weights  of 
lots  1,  5,  and  6  were  nearly  the  same,  although  lot  1  was  the  lightest 
of  the  three.  Lot  2  was  considerably  the  heaviest,  while  lots  3  and  4 
were  very  similar  in  weight.  These  differences  in  weight  were,  with  the 


1903.]  FATTENING  STEEES.  163 

exception  of  lot  2,  characteristic  of  the  different  grades  used  in  the 
test. 

The  fact  that  the  steers  in  lot  2  were  so  much  heavier  than  those 
in  the  other  lots  should  not  he  passed  without  comment.  It  has  been 
shown  why  it  was  impracticable  to  secure  steers  of  uniform  age  to  rep- 
resent the  different  market  grades  of  feeding  cattle.  This  was  done, 
however,  as  far  as  practicable.  By  referring  to  the  table  it  will  be  seen 
that  there  was  but  little  variation  in  the  average  weight  of  the  steers 
in  the  various  lots,  except  that  those  in  lot  2  were  considerably  heavier 
than  those  of  any  other  lot.  In  order  that  justice  should  be  done  to  all 
grades,  it  seemed  reasonable  to  secure  more  age  in  the  choice  than  in 
the  fancy  lot.  Differences  in  the  ages  of  the  different  grades  were  inevit- 
able, but  by  securing  an  intermediate  age  in  lot  2  which  was  one  of  the 
better  grades,  the  factor  of  age  as  affecting  cost  of  gains  was  largely 
eliminated.  In  securing  more  age  and  the  quality  which  characterizes 
choice  feeders  it  seemed  necessary,  to  meet  the  requirements  of  this  test, 
to  get  steers  of  rather  heavy  weight.  It  was  not  possible  to  secure  cattle 
of  uniform  weight  to  represent  the  various  grades  without  sacrificing 
other  and  apparently  more  important  factors.  It  should  also  be  noted 
that  the  differences  in  weight  at  the  end  of  the  experiment  are  much  less 
marked  than  they  were  at  the  beginning. 

In  selecting  steers  for  feeding  with  a  definite  idea  as  to  when  they 
are  to  be  ready  for  the  market,  the  cattle  feeder  must  needs  give  careful 
attention  to  age,  condition,  and  weight.  In  this  instance  feeders  were 
wanted  that  could  be  finished  with  thirty  to  sixty  days  light  and  pre- 
liminary feeding,  and  one  hundred  to  one  hundred  and  twenty  days  full 
feeding.  This  being  true,  strictly  grass  cattle  were  selected. 

SHELTER,  FEED  LOTS,  AND  WATER  SUPPLY. 

The  shelter  provided  for  the  various  grades  of  steers  used  in  this 
experiment  consisted  of  a  low  shed  open  to  the  south,  very  similar  to  the 
open  sheds  in  common  use  for  cattle  feeding  in  the  corn  belt.  It  could 
hardly  be  said  that  the  feed  lots  were  like  those  commonly  seen  in  Illi- 
nois, as  they  were  all  paved  with  brick.  It  is  impossible  to  get  two  feed 
lots  in  which  conditions  would  be  precisely  the  same  without  some 
provision  for  keeping  the  cattle  out  of  the  mud.  As,  the  feed  lots  were 
small,  36x48  feet,  with  a  12-foot  shed  running  along  the  north  side, 
making  the  total  size  36x60  feet,  paving  with  brick  seemed  the  most 
practicable  system.  The  lots  were  not  paved  under  the  sheds,  where  the 
ground  was  protected  from  all  surface  water.  The  sheds  were  kept 
well  bedded,  but  no  attempt  was  made  to  bed  the  pavement.  The  lots 
were  frequently  cleaned,  and  in  wet  weather  the  consistency  of  the  ma- 
nure on  the  pavement  was  such  that  it  could  have  been  handled  more 


164  BULLETIN  No.  90.  [December, 

advantageously  had  litter  of  some  sort  been  freely  mingled  with  it.  The 
price  of  bedding  at  the  time  prohibited  its  use  for  this  purpose.  During 
the  day  the  steers  had  access  to  fresh  pure  water  stored  in  galvanized  steel 
tanks  into  which  it  was  drawn  from  the  University  plant.  Late  in  the 
evening  of  each  day  during  the  coldest  weather  the  water  was  all  drawn 
from  the  tanks  by  means  of  a  convenient  device  in  the  bottom  of  each 
and  carried  away  in  a  tile  provided  for  that  purpose. 

METHOD  OF  FEEDING  STEERS. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that,  notwithstanding  what  may  be  subse- 
quently said  concerning  the  method  of  feeding  and  the  feeds  used  in 
connection  with  this  test,  the  experiment  was  primarily  to  test  the 
feeding  quality  of  the  various  grades  of  feeding  cattle,  while  the  feeds 
used  and  the  manner  of  feeding  the  same  were  incidental  rather  than 
material  and  were  the  same  for  all  lots.  It  seemed  desirable  to  elimi- 
nate the  pork-producing  factor  in  this  experiment  as  far  as  practicable; 
hence,  the  grinding  of  the  grain  seemed  necessary.  Corn  and  cob 
meal  has  given  such  universal  satisfaction  for  cattle  feeding  that  the  use 
of  the  corn  in  this  form  promised  good  results.  In  seeking  a  nitroge- 
nous roughage  to  supplement  corn  it  was  found  that  the  quality  of 
clover  hay  was  universally  bad  and  that  it  was  impossible  to  secure  good 
clover  hay  in  sufficient  quantities  to  warrant  its  use  throughout  the 
experiment.  While  clover  and  timothy  hay  were  used  in  considerable 
quantities  during  the  earlier  part  of  the  test,  as  soon  as  alfalfa  could  be 
secured  it  was  used  as  roughage.  Many  well  known  cattle  feeders  have 
expressed  the  opinion  from  time  to  time  that  the  chaffing  or  cutting  of 
roughage  and  mingling  it  with  the  grain  would  prove  the  best  method  for 
economizing  food.  Except  in  a  very  few  instances  this  method  of  feeding 
has  never  been  used  in  an  extensive  way.  The  results  of  this  experiment 
indicate  that  it  is  by  no  means  an  impracticable  method  of  feeding.  The 
clover  and  timothy  hay,  and  later  the  alfalfa,  were  run  through  an 
ordinary  ensilage  machine  which  cut  the  hay  into  bits  about  two  inches 
in  length.  This  cut  or  chopped  hay  was  mixed  with  the  grain  in  certain 
definite  proportions,  as  will  be  shown  subsequently.  During  the  early 
part  of  the  experiment,  cotton  seed  meal,  and  during  the  latter  part, 
oil  meal,  were  fed  to  supplement  the  corn,  and  these  concentrates  were 
an  ingredient  of  the  mixed  feed  which  was  fed  the  steers  twice  a  day  at 
six  to  seven  in  the  morning  and  at  four  to  five  o'clock  in  the  afternoon. 
Great  care  was  taken  to  see  that  each  lot  was  fed  at  the  same  hours  each 
day. 

The  adoption  of  this  system  of  feeding  made  it  possible  to  keep  very 
accurate  records  of  all  feed,  both  roughage  and  concentrates  and  to 
insure  that  the  proportion  of  roughage  to.  concentrates  was  always  the 
same  with  all  the  lots. 


1903.]  FATTENING  STEERS.  165 

The  experiment  began  November  29,  1902,  and  for  several  weeks  the 
ear  corn  was  simply  run  through  an  ensilage  machine,  which  cracked  the 
corn  and  cobs.  The  grinding  of  the  corn,  cob  and  all,  began  about  the 
middle  of  February.  Toward  the  last  of  the  feeding  of  the  cracked  corn 
and  cobs  the  steers  left  a  large  part  of  the  cobs. 

The  advantage  of  this  system  of  feeding  shows  the  possibility  of 
converting  a  large  proportion  of  the  feed  consumed  into  beef,  profit  not 
being  so  largely  dependent  upon  the  hog  as  a  factor  in  beef  production. 
There  were  very  few  cases  of  scours  during  the  feeding  period,  and  only 
two  out  of  the  96  head  were  off'  feed  during  the  entire  time.  These 
facts  will  at  once  commend  this  system  to  experienced  feeders.  It  was 
not  necessary  to  take  out  a  single  steer  originally  selected  for  the  experi- 
ment, and  the  cattle  were  peculiarly  free  from  sickness  of  any  kind. 

The  cotton  seed  and  linseed  meal  -were  both  of  good  quality;  the 
former  was  the  "Dixie  Brand,"  the  latter  "Old  Process,"  pea  size.  The 
clover  hay  used  was  of  poor  quality,  the  timothy  hay,  medium,  the  alfalfa 
while  not  strictly  choice,  was  good,  and  the  stover  was  poor. 

The  cattle  having  been  fed  on  broken  corn  for  about  three  weeks 
prior  to  the  beginning  of  the  experiment  and  for  a  few  days  after,  did 
not  at  first  take  kindly  to  the  change  from  broken  to  cracked  corn.  In 
less  than  a  week,  however,  they  ate  the  cracked  corn  greedily.  The 
grain  and  hay  were  fed  separately  for  three  weeks,  after  which  time  the 
hay  was  cut  and  mixed  with  the  grain.  They  ate  the  mixed  feed  well 
from  the  start.  The  feeding  of  cotton  seed  meal  was  begun  the  fifth  week 
of  the  experiment.  The  cattle  did  not  eat  it  well  at  the  start.  In  less 
than  two  weeks,  however,  they  ate  it  greedily.  For  the  first  six  weeks 
the  amounts  of  corn  and  hay  fed  were  about  equal.  At  the  beginning  of 
the  seventh  week  the  proportionate  weight  of  hay  to  corn  was  as  one  to 
two.  Corn  stover  was  fed  to  each  lot  one  or  two  days  a  week  during 
January  and  February  in  order  to  furnish  variety  and  add  the  extra 
roughage  which  the  steers  seemed  to  relish.  The  appetite  was  kept 
keen  by  increasing  the  feed  slowly  and  gradually.  No  indications  of 
leaving  feed  were  seen  until  about  the  end  of  the  eighth  week,  when  there 
was  some  tendency  to  leave  some  of  the  roughage  part  of  the  ration. 
This  was  taken  as  an  indication  that  the  amount  of  roughage  to  the  graiii 
fed  was  too  great.  Consequently  the  proportion  was  reduced  to  three- 
quarters  corn  to  one-quarter  hay.  February  8,  one-half  the  roughage  fed 
was  clover  hay  and  the  other  half  alfalfa.  From  February  11  to  the  end 
of  the  experiment  practically  all  of  the  roughage  fed  was  alfalfa.  It 
proved  a.  most  excellent  roughage.  The  droppings  of  the  steers  soon 
began  to  show  that  their  bowels  were  in  much  better  condition  than 
when  clover  hay  of  poor  quality  was  fed.  By  February  18  the  steers  were 
getting  all  the  feed  they  would  take.  From  this  time  on  an  effort  was 
made  to  feed  them  all  they  would  eat,  care  being  taken  not  to  force 


166  BULLETIN  No.  90.  [December, 

them  off  feed.  Not  a  steer  of  the  whole  96  head  scoured  until  March 
23,  when  one  in  lot  3  began  scouring.  In  a  very  few  days  this  was 
stopped,  and  no  more  cases  occurred.  March  24  one-half  of  the  cot- 
ton seed  meal  was  replaced  by  linseed  oil  meal.  The  cotton  seed  meal 
in  the  ration  was  gradually  replaced  by  oil  meal.  Neither  the  appetites 
of  the  steers  nor  their  droppings  appeared  to  be  materially  different 
as  a  result  of  this  change.  Their  appetite  fell  off  materially  with  the 
warm  days  of  May  and  they  were  given  less  feed  in  consequence. 

On  the  basis  of  the  total  digestible  nutrients  fed  throughout  the 
experiment,  the  nutritive  ratio  is  1 :  7.64.  This  is  too  wide  as  compared 
with  the  standard  nutritive  ratio  for  fattening  steers,  a  variation  from 
the  standard  which  is  permissible  in  the  corn  belt  where  the  effort  is  to 
use  as  much  corn  as  possible,  and  the  gains  made  for  food  consumed 
appear  to  indicate  that  a  ration  having  a  nutritive  ratio  of  1 :  7.64  made 
up  of  the  feeds  used  in  this  experiment  will  produce  satisfactory  returns. 

Table  2  shows  the  daily  rations  fed  per  1,000  pounds  live  weight 
in  each  lot  by  periods.  This  exhibit  is  presented  because  it  is  believed 
that  many  cattle  feeders  will  be  interested  in  knowing  just  how  much 
and  what  kind  of  grain  and  how  much  and  what  variety  of  roughage 
the  steers  received  daily  during  the  various  stages  of  the  fattening  pro- 
cess. 

By  referring  to  the  table  it  will  be  seen  that  during  the  first  month 
the  number  of  pounds  of  roughage  to  grain  or  concentrates  fed  per 
thousand  pound  steer  was  as  4:3.  From  this  time  on  the  grain  part  of  the 
ration  was  gradually  increased  while  the  roughage  was  as  gradually  de- 
creased until  the  last,  when  about  five  times  as  much  grain  was  fed  as 
roughage. 

Some  timothy  hay  was  fed,  but  for  no  other  reason  than  that  clover 
was  not  available  at  the  time.  The  change  from  cotton  seed  to  old  pro- 
cess linseed  meal  was  made  to  furnish  greater  variety. 

Of  the  total  feed  consumed,  a  little  less  than  69  percent  was  grain 
and  a  little  more  than  31  percent  was  roughage;  that  is  to  say,  the  weight 
of  roughage  was  45  percent  of  that  of  the  grain.  As  the  same  ration  was 
fed  to  all  there  was  no  opportunity  of  knowing  whether  a  different  pro- 
portion would  have  been  more  favorable  for  certain  of  the  grades. 


1903.] 


FATTENING  STEERS. 


167 


TABLE  2. — DAILY  RATION  PER  THOUSAND  POUNDS  LIVE  WEIGHT  BY  PERIODS. 


T  ^4- 

* 

Periods 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

Cracked  corn,  and  corn 
and  cob  meal.       .    .    . 

8  75 

13  38 

19  19 

17.63 

16.91 

16.74 

17.12 

Cotton  seed  meal 

1  54 

2  71 

2.30 

.98 

I 

O   P  linseed  meal  . 

1.23 

2  34 

2  39 

Alfalfa  

2.96 

5.88 

5.04 

4.45 

3.48 

Clover  hay  

9.05 

2.45 

5.19 

.20 

Timothy  hay  

3.98 

8.24 

.30 

Corn  stover  

2.50 

1.10 

Cracked  corn  and  corn 
and  cob  meal  

8.63 

13.38 

19.35 

18.54 

18.98 

18.27 

17.99 

Cotton  seed  meal  

1.45 

2.74 

2.42 

1.12 

? 

O.  P.  linseed  meal  

1.41 

2.56 

2.52 

Alfalfa  

2.94 

6.18 

5.75 

4.85 

3.65 

Clover  hay  

8.91 

2.36 

5.25 

.21 

Timothy  hay  

4.22 

7.95 

.30 

Corn  stover  

2.13 

.96 

Cracked  corn  and  corn 
and  cob  meal  . 

9  43 

13  90 

19  35 

18  58 

19  10 

18  11 

17  89 

Cotton  seed  meal   

1.51 

2.75 

2.43 

1.08 

3 

O.  P.  linseed  meal  .      .    . 

1.41 

2  54 

2  50 

Alfalfa  . 

2  96 

6  20 

5  67 

4  81 

3  56 

Clover  hay  

10.12 

2.46 

5.20 

.21 

Timothy  hay  

3.88 

8.40 

.31 

Corn  stover   

2.35 

1.05 

Cracked  corn  and  corn 
and  cob  meal    

8.76 

13.72 

19.53 

18.86 

19  02 

17.90 

17  08 

Cotton  seed  meal   

1  52 

2  80 

2  47 

1  10 

4 

O.  P.  linseed  meal  .     ... 

1  39 

2  51 

2  39 

Alfalfa  

2.97 

6.29 

5.55 

4.76 

3.46 

Clover  hay  

10.18 

2.51 

5.31 

.20 

Timothy  hay  

3.89 

8.36 

.29 

Corn  stover   

2.37 

1.07 

Cracked  corn  and  corn 
and  cob  meal  

9.01 

13.81 

19.50 

18.35 

18.37 

17.11 

17.60 

Cotton  seed  meal  

1.54 

2.77 

2.40 

1.05 

5 

O   P  linseed  meal  . 

1  35 

2  38 

2  46 

Alfalfa  

2  95 

6  12 

5  46 

4.54 

3  57 

Clover  hay     

10  90 

2  51 

5.26 

20 

Timothy  hay  

4.03 

8.48 

.30 

Corn  stover   

2.50 

1.13 

Cracked  corn  and  corn 
and  cob  meal    

7.93 

13.26 

19.48 

17.74 

17.30 

16.92 

16.27 

Cotton  seed  meal  

1.52 

2  71 

2.32 

.98 

6 

O.  P.  linseed  meal  

1  28 

2  37 

2  27 

Alfalfa  

2  94 

5  91 

5  14 

4  50 

3  29 

Clover  hay  ....        ... 

10  15 

2  45 

5  37 

19 

Timothy  hay  

4.63 

8.23 

.28 

Corn  stover  

2.47 

1.12 

*Period  1  extended  from  November  29  to  December  27,  1902;  period  2,  Decem- 
ber  27,  1902,  to  January  24,  1903;  period  3,  January  24  to  February  21;  period  4, 
February  21  to  March  21;  period  5,  March  21  to  April  18;  period  6,  April  18  to 
May  16;  period  7,  May  16  to  May  28. 


168  BULLETIN  No.  90.  \December, 

TABLE  3. — EXTENT  AND  RAPIDITY  OF  GAINS  IN  POUNDS  FOR  THE  VARIOUS  GRADES, 


L»t 

No. 

Market  grade 
at  begi.ining 
of  experi- 
ment. 

16  steers  &\ 
beginning 
of  experi- 
ment. 

Average 
per  steer. 

16  steers 
at  end  of 
experi- 
ment. 

Average 
per  steer. 

Average 
gain  per 
steer 
for  whole 
period. 

Average 
daily  gain 
per  steer 

f  -T 

179  days. 

1 
2 
3 

Fancy  .... 
Choice  .... 
Good    

14953 
17836 
16305 

934.562 
1114.750 
1019.062 

22315 
25120 
23010 

1394.687 
1570.000 
1438.125 

460  .  125 
455.250 
419.062 

2.570 
2.543 
2  341 

4 

Medium  .  .  . 

16355 

1022.187 

22450 

1403.125 

380.938 

2.128 

5 

Common  .  . 

15458 

966.125 

21780 

1361.250 

395.125 

2.207 

6 

Inferior  .  .  . 

15448 

965.500 

21055 

1315.937 

350.437 

1.957 

This  table  exhibits  the  total  weight  of  each  lot,  and  the  average 
weight  of  each  steer  at  the  beginning  and  at  the  end  of  the  experiment, 
the  average  gain  of  each  steer  in  each  lot  for  the  whole  period,  and  the 
average  daily  gain  per  steer  in  each  lot  throughout  the  feeding  period. 

Undoubtedly,  the  most  characteristic  thing  illustrated  in  this  table 
is  the  variation  in  the  extent  and  rapidity  of  gains  made  by  the  steers 
in  the  various  lots.  With  one  exception  it  will  be  seen  that  the  better 
the  grade  of  steers  the  greater  and  the  more  rapid  the  gains.  This  excep- 
tion is  lot  4.  The  steers  in  lot  4  did  not  gain  quite  as  rapidly  as  did  those 
in  lot  5  which  were  lower  in  grade.  This  variation  in  extent  and  rapidity 
of  gains  is  so  gradual  and  regular  that  it  is  added  proof  of  the  generally 
accepted  fact  that,  where  other  conditions  remain  constant,  the  better 
the  quality  cf  steers  the  greater  and  the  more  rapid  are  the  gains.  That 
there  should  be  such  wide  differences  in  gains  as  is  shown  in  the  above 
table  adds  further  evidence  on  this  point.  The  economic  importance 
of  this  factor  will  receive  comment  later. 

Larger  gains  are  frequently  reported,  especially  in  short  feeding 
period?,  but  at  no  time  during  the  first  half  of  the  feeding  period  were 
these  steers  crowded  to  their  utmost  capacity.  During  the  last  half 
only  were  they  given  all  that,  in  the  judgment  of  those  having  the  experi- 
ment in  charge,  they  could  use  to  advantage.  Attention  was  given  to 
economical  rather  than  extensive  production  of  beef.  Economical  pro- 
duction of  beef  involves  the  securing  of  a  satisfactory  market  finish  with- 
out overloading  the  animal  with  fat.  While  an  over-ripe  condition  con- 
tributes largely  to  higher  averages  of  dressed  beef  and  higher  percentages 
of  fat,  it  is  detrimental  to  the  retail  butcher,  the  consumer,  and  the 
producer;  to  the  retail  butcher  because  it  entails  too  much  waste  of 
fat  in  cutting;  to  the  consumer  because  he  is  forced  to  accept  more 
fat  at  the  market  than  can  be  agreeably  consumed  along  with  the  lean 
beef  accompanying  the  cut;  and  lastly,  and  most  important  of  all  from 
the  feeders'  standpoint,  this  unnecessary  and  superfluous  fatness  of  the 
over-ripe  bullock  is  the  best  possible  evidence  that  the  last  gains  have 
been  very  expensive. 


1903.J 


FATTENING  STEERS. 


169 


TABLE  4. — AVERAGE  DAILY  GAIN  PER  STEER  IN  POUNDS  FOR  EACH  LOT  BY  PERIODS 
AND  AVERAGE  FOR  ALL  LOTS  BY  PERIODS. 


Lot 
No. 

Fr  m 
Nov.  29- 
Dec.  27, 
1902. 

Fr  in 
Dec.  27, 
1902- 
Jan.  24, 

From 
Jan.  24- 
Feb.  21, 
1903. 

From 
Feb.  21- 
Mar.  21, 
1903. 

From 
Mar.  21- 
Apr.  18, 
1903. 

From 
Apr.  18- 
Mav  16, 
1903. 

Fr  m 
May  16- 
May  28, 
1903. 

Frcm 
Nov.  29, 
1902- 
May  29, 
1903 

28  days. 

28  days. 

28  days. 

28  days. 

£8  days. 

28  days. 

12  days. 

179  days. 

1 

2.136 

.959 

3.024 

2.812 

2.968 

3.303 

3.125 

2.570 

2 

2.095 

.825 

2.801 

2.734 

3.683 

3.203 

2.329 

2.543 

3 

1.428 

.904 

2.555 

2.500 

3.448 

2.801 

3.380 

2.341 

4 

1.484 

.457 

2.154 

2.734 

3.191 

2.399 

3.011 

2.128 

5 

1.466 

.424 

2.232 

2.714 

3.538 

2.544 

3.039 

2.207 

6 

1.466 

.982 

1.852 

2.198 

3.493 

2.008 

1.307 

1.957 

Aver- 

age 

1.679 

.759 

2  .  436 

2.615 

3.3S7 

2.710 

2.698 

2.291 

The  accompanying  Table  4  shows  that  the  greatest  average  daily 
gain  for  the  ninety-six  head  came  during  the  four-week  period  from 
March  21  to  April  IS,  and  the  lowest  average  daily  gain  was  secured  dur- 
ing the  second  four-week  period.  Barring  the  one  exception  of  the 
second  four  weeks  in  the  feeding  period,  taking  the  whole  number  of 
steers  involved  in  this  test,  the  average  daily  gains  increased  steadily 
from  the  first  four-week  period  to  that  of  the  fifth  period,  after  which 
the  average  daily  gains  fell  off  slightly  for  the  last  two  periods,  but 
the  gains  here  were  still  greater  than  those  obtained  during  any  of  the 
periods  preceding  period  five.  Tabulated  records  on  subsequent  pages 
of  this  Bulletin,  Table  14,  show  that  the  committee  of  experts  from  the 
Yards,  consisting  of  Messrs.  Alexander,  Shannon,  and  Brown,  decided, 
without  knowing  the  gains  made  by  the  cattle  month  by  month,  that 
during  this  same  fifth  period  the  steers  increased  in  value  more  than 
during  any  other  four-week  period.  This  is  evidence  of  the  expert 
ability  of  these  gentlemen  and  of  the  great  care  that  was  exercised  in 
fixing  the  values  of  the  cattle  from  month  to  month. 

The  results  tabulated  have  a  bearing  upon  the  possible  extent  of 
gains  in  the  various  grades  under  study.  By  referring  to  Table  4  it 
will  be  seen  that  the  average  daily  gains  for  the  last  forty  days  of  the 
experiment  were  rather  above  than  below  the  average  for  the  whole 
time,  an  increase  which  indicates  that  probably  fairly  satisfactory  gains 
could  have  been  secured  for  a  limited  longer  period.  It  is  more  than 
probable,  however,  that  the  increase  in  value  per  hundred  weight  of  the 
steers  of  the  various  lots  would  not  have  been  sufficient  to  render  such 
feeding  profitable.  As  bearing  upon  this  important  question  we  publish 
the  following  statement  made  by  the  committee  of  experts,  Messrs.  Alex- 
ander, Shannon,  and  Brown: 

EXCHANGE  BUILDING,  UNION  STOCK  YARDS. 

CHICAGO,  111.,  September  10,  1903. 
All  of  the  various  lots,  from  one  to  six,  inclusive,  of  the  steers  mar- 


170 


BULLETIN  jSTo.  90. 


[December, 


keted  by  the  Illinois  Experiment  Station,  May  28th,  1903,  were  in  good 
marketable  condition.  Their  market  value  would  not  have  been  profita- 
bly enhanced  by  further  feeding. 

(    JOHN  T.  ALEXANDEK, 
Signed,         J    GEORGE  W.  SHANNON, 
[    JAMES  BROWN, 

Committee  of  Experts. 

TABLE  5. — ECONOMY  OF  GAINS  AS  MEASURED  BY  FEED  CONSUMED.     DIGESTIBLE 

*DKY  MATTER  REQUIRED  FOR  PRODUCING  GAINS  IN  BEEF, 

COST  OF  POUND  OF  BEEF. 


Lot 

Total  in 

Total  in 

Total  dry 

Total 

Dry 
matter 

fTotal 

Cost  per 

No. 

concentrates. 

roughage. 

matter. 

gain, 
pounds. 

per  pound 
of  gain. 

cost  of 
gain. 

pound 
of  rain. 

1 

50753.966 

22513.674 

73267.640 

7362 

9.952 

$496.45 

$0.0074 

2 

61393.255 

26699.992 

88093.247 

7284 

12.094 

598.59 

.0821 

3 

56236.152 

24781.074 

81017.226 

6705 

12.083 

548.18 

.0817 

4 

54977  .  196 

24558.566 

79535.762 

6095 

13.049 

534.63 

.0877 

5 

52179.942 

23695.316 

75875.258 

6322 

12.002 

513.47 

.0812 

6 

49512.307 

22982.623 

72494.930 

5607 

12.929 

485.64 

.0866 

Total 

325052.818 

145231.245 

470284.063 

39375 

11.943 

3176.96 

.0806 

*Dry  Matter.  The  portion  of  a  feeding  stuff  remaining  after  the  water  or 
moisture  contained  therein  has  been  driven  off  by  heat.  Ordinary  feeds  contain 
about  10  to  1 1  percent  moisture. 

fThe  figures  in  this  column  represent  the  total  cost  of  feed  less  value  of  pork 
produced  by  the  pigs  following  the  various  lots. 

Table  5  exhibits  not  only  the  total  number  pounds  digestible  dry 
matter  fed  each,  lot,  but  the  amount  of  dry  matter  in  the  roughage  and  in 
the  concentrates  separately.  It  shows  the  pounds  dry  matter  required 
to  produce  a  pound  of  gain  in  beef  for  each  lot,  the  cost  of  gain,  and  the 
cost  per  pound  of  gain  in  each  lot. 

From  the  totals  in  this  table  it  was  determined  that  about  69.11  per- 
cent, or  a  little  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  digestible  dry  matter  fed, 
was  fed  in  the  form  of  concentrates,  such  as  corn  and  cob,  cotton  seed 
and  oil  meal,  and  30.89  percent  was  fed  in  form  of  roughages,  such  as 
clover,  timothy,  alfalfa  hay,  and  corn  stover.  It  will  be  noticed  that 
except  in  the  case  of  lot  1  the  total  amount  of  dry  matter  consumed 
varies  directly  with  the  grade  of  steers.  The  better  the  grade,  or  the 
better  bred  the  steers,  the  larger  the  consumption  of  dry  matter.  The 
consumption  of  dry  matter  did  not  follow  as  uniformly  the  variations  in 
weight  of  the  cattle.  It  did  not  necessarily  follow  that  because  one 
lot  of  steers  was  heavier  than  another  it  would  consume  more  feed  and 
consequently  more  dry  matter.  Weight  certainly  does  have  a  marked 
influence  upon  capacity  and  demand  for  feed,  but  the  records  of  this 
test  appear  to  indicate  that  the  possibility  of  large  consumption  is  also 
dependent  upon  the  grade  or  quality  of  the  cattle.  In  case  of  lot 


1903.]  FATTENING  STEERS.  171 

1,  however,  there  appears  to  be  a  relatively  small  consumption  of  dry 
matter.  This  is  the  lot  in  which  the  weight  of  the  cattle  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  experiment  was  much  less  than  in  other  lots,  and  this 
undoubtedly  was  the  cause  of  the  smaller  consumption  of  feed. 

By  referring  to  the  column  in  the  table  showing  the  pounds  dry  mat- 
ter required  to  produce  a  pound  of  gain  in  beef,  it  can  be  seen  that 
while  the  average  number  of  pounds  of  dry  matter  required  to  produce 
a  pound  of  gain  in  beef  for  the  whole  96  head  involved  in  the  experi- 
ment was  11.943  pounds,  the  steers  in  lot  1  required  only  9.952  pounds. 
This  shows  that  the  steers  in  lot  1  were  clearly  the  most  economical  pro- 
ducers of  beef  of  all  the  lots.  The  gains  in  beef  in  lot  4  were  made  at 
greatest  expense  of  dry  matter  consumed,  while  lot  6  is  a  close  second. 
That  there  should  be  so  much  difference  in  the  cost  of  a  pound  of  beef 
between  lot  1  and  the  other  lots  and  that  there  should  be  such  slight 
differences  in  the  otber  grades  should  not  be  passed  unnoticed.  The  cost 
of  gains  in  the  various  lots  does  not  seem  to  be  clearly  dependent  upon 
either  the  age,  initial  weight,  or  breeding  of  the  steers.  In  lot  1  we 
have  the  highest  percentage  of  beef  blood,  the  youngest  age,  and  the 
least  initial  bodily  weight.  It  is-  believed  that  all  of  these  factors 
contributed  to  the  results  exhibited  here.  Evidence  is  wanting,  however, 
to  make  it  possible  to  make  strong  claims  for  any  one  of  these  factors 
as  an  essential  above  all  things  in  the  economic  production  of  beef. 

Cost  of  gains  in  beef  were  computed  both  on  the  basis  of  digestible 
dry  matter  consumed  and  net  cost  of  food  converted  into  beef.  This 
will  make  it  possible  for  the  feeder  to  tell  at  a  glance  the  relative  cost 
of  gains  in  beef  in  the  various  lots  under  conditions  prevailing  during  the 
past  season.  Market  prices  of  feeds  used  in  beef  production  are  subject 
to  great  variations,  hence,  the  dry  matter  table  is  believed  to  be  essential. 

NUMBER  OF  POUNDS  BEEF  PRODUCED  PER  BUSHEL  OF  CORN  FED. 

Since  it  is  customary  among  feeders  to  use  a  bushel  of  corn  as  the 
unit  for  figuring  the  possibility  of  securing  certain  gains  from  a  given 
amount  of  feed,  the  subjoined  statement  will  be  of  interest. 

The  steers  in  lot  1  made  9.74;  lot  2,  7.97;  lot  3,  7.99;  lot  4,  7.45; 
lot  5,  8.13;  and  lot  6,  7.61  pounds  of  beef  for  each  bushel  of  corn  con- 
sumed. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  with  each  bushel  of  corn  about  eight 
pounds  of  some  highly  nitrogenous  concentrate  like  cotton  seed  or 
linseed  oil  meal  was  fed,  and  that  in  addition  to  beef  a  certain  amount  of 
pork  was  produced. 


172 


BULLETIN  No.  90. 


[December •, 


o 

o 

s 

I 


ft 

H 

O 

fe     . 

o   o 


o  p 

s  g 
1 1 
•g  I 

pi    ft 

g  a 

S-» 

5  ° 


- 


oo~ 
^ 


CD  oo~  • 

itilMCO 


ceco    . 

rH  i—  1  CO 


cT 
^ 


^00"    . 
C*  I-H  CO 

.    .  o 


I    rH 

J.(NCO 


IN  •*  CC  O5<M  O5 
1C  O5  GO  ^  O  M 

O5  O  O  O  O  O5 


00  1C  00  00  O5  CC 
1C  00  O  CO  -*1  IN 
O  CO  O  TF  CO  1* 


O3  ^  O5  O5  Ol  Oi 


rf  t^  IM  CO  O5  r-i 
<N  »O  00  O5  (N  'C 

O  CR  CO  CO  <N  CD 


Tf  00  t>-  »C  rH  t^ 
IN  t^(N  rH  t^  O 

O  iM  t^  CD  rf  kO 


O  (N  (N  CO  (N  (N 


00  Tjl  O  O  rH  OS 

O  1C  00  O5  O5  -*1 
rfi  CO  C  •  >O  O  CO 


X  O5  OCR  00  1> 


IM  IM  O  CO  00  l> 

r^  10  as  os  co  rH 

Tt*  1C  Tf  Tf  I>  rH 


o  co  Tti  ic  TJ<  10 


Tff  00  rH  t^  <M  OS 

CD  t^  rH  CD  00  OS 

•*  CO  CD  CD  OS  I> 


O5  rH  rH  O  OS  rH 


OS  t>-  IM  Ol>  CO 

CD  •*  tXN  CO  rH 
CO  •*  X  l>  00  00 


rH  Ttt  iO  00  IV  CD 


Tt<  rH 
1C  00  ( 


(N  •<** 
00  (M  OS  OS  rH 

CD  O  O  rH  OS  CO 


OS  (N  <N  •*  (M  1C 


C   *O  r-l  CO  O3  O 

co  rH  as  •*  co  o 

CO  l>  C  f-  t^  <N 


tC  r-4  t>>  Tt*  tQ  t^ 

rH  OS  »O  O  00  C 

OO  OO  «C  t^  1C  •* 


(N  CC  IM  »O  tO  (N 


01 1^     • 
IM  (M  <M 

.  O 

>  S^S 


IM  CO  O  rH  <M 

ST}<  CO  OS  1C  •* 
CO  t>  00  Oi  IM 

00  O  'f  CO  CO  CO 


(N  CO1*  1C  CO 


CO 

« 

OS 


All  lo 
mbin 


1903.]  FATTENING  STEERS.  173 

Important  data  are  presented  in  Table  6.  It  shows  the  amount 
of  digestible  dry  matter  required  to  produce  a  pound  of  gain  during 
each  of  the  four-week  periods  throughout  the  experiment  and  the 
amount  required  from  the  beginning  of  the  experiment  to  the 
end  of  each  period.  From  this  data  some  light  is  thrown  upon 
the  question  whether  or  not  early  gains  are  cheapest  after  eliminat- 
ing the  first  few  weeks  during  which  time  apparent  gains  are  to  be 
partially  referred  to  "fill/'  The  very  large  amount  of  dry  matter 
required  to  produce  a  pound  of  gain  in  all  the  lots  from  December  27, 
1902,  to  January  24,  1903,  should  be  noted.  By  referring  to  Table  4 
it  will  be  seen  that  the  gains  in  all  the  lots  during  this  period  were  much 
smaller  than  the  gains  for  the  corresponding  lots  during  the  periods 
preceding  and  following  the  one  in  question.  The  fact  that  the  gains 
were  light  during  the  preceding  period  is  evidence  that  the  small  gains 
during  the  second  period  were  not  due  to  differences  in  stomach 
and  intestinal  contents  at  the  beginning  and  end  of  the  period.  As 
far  as  we  are  able  to  determine,  the  expenditure  of  relatively  so  large 
an  amount  of  dry  matter  to  produce  such  small  gains  was  due  to  several 
causes. 

First,  the  feed  lots  were  undergoing  important  changes  which  neces- 
sitated the  frequent  disturbance  of  the  steers  by  workmen. 

Second,  visitors  were  numerous  and  the  steers  were  frequently  dis- 
turbed on  their  account. 

Third,  feeds  which  the  steers  had  not  been  accustomed  to  eating 
were  added  to  the  ration,  and  the  preparation  of  feeds  used  and  method 
of  feeding  were  considerably  modified. 

It  has  been  customary  in  reporting  tests  of  efficiency  of  feeds  for 
meat  production  to  reduce  the  results  to  the  amount  of  feed  required  for 
producing  a  unit  of  gain.  Thus  the  gain  produced  is. assumed  as  the 
constant  quantity  and  the  amount  of  feed  required  is  calculated  on  that 
basis.  The  author  believes,  however,  that  in  discussing  the  efficiency  of 
a  ration  a  fixed  quantity  of  the  ration  itself  is  properly  the  basis  of 
calculations,  and  that  the  comparisons  made  should  be  between  the  dif- 
ferent gains  produced  by  this  fixed  quantity  of  the  feed  under  the  various 
conditions  of  the  test.  In  this  way  the  producing  capacity  of  the  feed 
is  shown  in  simple  terms,  while  by  the  other  method  the  gaining  capacity 
of  the  animal  is  the  result  obtained.  On  this  assumption  the  following 
table  is  presented,  showing  the  amount  of  beef  produced  per  bushel  of 
corn  consumed,  and  the  amount  and  value  of  the  beef  produced  per  1,000 
pounds  digestible  dry  matter  when  fed  to  each  of  the  six  grades  of 
steers. 

The  efficiency  of  the  feed  for  producing  increase  in  weight  is  shown 
in  line  3  of  the  table,  and  is  computed  from  the  increase  in  weight  and 
the  digestible  dry  matter  consumed  by  each  lot  of  steers.  The  efficiency 


174  BULLETIN  No.  90.  [December, 

in  the  case  of  lot  1  is  then  made  the  unit  or  100  percent,  and  the 
results  reduced  to  this  basis,  as  shown  in  line  4. 

Next  the  efficiency  of  the  feed  for  producing  increase  in  value  per 
hundred  weight  of  the  beef  is  recorded  in  lines  7  and  8.  These  figures 
are  derived  as  follows:  Assuming  a  stationary  market  throughout  the 
experiment,  the  increase  in  value  per  hundred  weight  of  the  cattle — as 
fixed  by  the  committee  of  experts — is  divided  by  the  amount  of  digesti- 
ble dry  matter  consumed  (lines  5  and  6),  giving  the  increase  in  value  of 
cattle  per  hundred  weight  per  unit  of  feed.  Eeducing  the  results  to 
terms  of  lot  1  as  above,  we  have  the  eighth  line  of  the  table. 

Lines  9  and  10  show  the  efficiency  of  the  feed  for  producing  per- 
cent increase  in  value  of  cattle  per  hundred  weight,  which  result  is 
obtained  for  each  lot  by  dividing  the  increase  in  value  per  hundred 
weight  for  1,000  pounds  digestible  dry  matter  by  the  original  cost  per 
hundred  weight. 

In  order  to  determine  the  efficiency  of  the  feed  for  increasing  both 
amount  and  quality  of  beef — in  other  words,  to  find  the  total  increase 
in  value  of  the  cattle  due  to  a  unit  of  feed  consumed — the  increase  in 
live  weight  per  unit  of  feed  is  multiplied  by  the  increase  in  value  per 
hundred  weight  per  1,000  pounds  digestible  dry  matter  consumed.  In 
this  way  lines  11  and  12  are  obtained. 

Taking  into  consideration  the  percent  increase  in  value  per  hun- 
dred weight  of  the  cattle  and  their  increase  in  weight,  for  1,000  pounds 
digestible  dry  matter  consumed,  the  net  efficiency  of  the  feed  may  be 
computed.  This  result  is  shown  in  lines  13  and  14,  which  are  obtained 
by  multiplying  the  results  in  line  2  by  the  corresponding  numbers  in  line 
9.  We  now  have  the  efficiency  of  the  feed  with  respect  to  increase  in 
weight  (line  4),  increase  in  value  per  hundred  weight  (line  8),  percent 
increase  in  value  per  hundred  weight  (line  10);  increase  in  value  (line 
12);  and  percent  increase  in  value  combined  with  increase  in  weight 
(line  14). 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  data  presented  in  the  accom- 
panying table  are  computed  on  the  basis  of  a  stationary  market,  the 
increases  in  value  per  hundred  weight  in  the  various  grades  being  fixed 
by  the  committee  of  experts. 


1903.] 


FATTENING  STEEES. 


175 


TABLE  7. 


Lot  1, 
Fancy. 

Lot  2, 
Choice. 

Lot  3, 
Good. 

Lot  4, 
Medium. 

Lot  5, 
Common. 

Lot  6, 
Inferior. 

Line. 

Lb.   beef    produced    per 
bu.  corn  consumed  .  .  . 
Lb.    beef    produced    per 
1,000  Ib.  digestible  dry 
matter  consumed   .... 

9.74 
100  40 

7.97 
82  60 

7.99 

82  70 

7.45 
76  60 

8.13 
83  30 

7.61 

77  30 

(1) 
(2) 

Efficiency    of     feed     lor 
producing  quantity  of 
gain,     or     percent    of 
digestible    dry    matter 
converted  into  beef  .  .  . 
Efficiency    of    teed    for 
quantity   of    gain    on 
basis  of  100  percent  for 
lot  1    

10.04 
100 

8.26 

82 

8.27 
82 

7.66 
76 

8.33 
83 

7.73 

77 

(3) 
(4) 

Increase  in  value  of  cat- 
tle per  cwt  

$2  25 

$2  35 

$2  30 

$1  95 

$1  90 

$2  05 

(5) 

Total   Ib.  digestible   dry 
matter  consumed   .... 
Increase  in  value  of  cat- 
tle per  cwt.  per  1,000 
Ib.   of    digestible    dry 
matter  consumed  

73,268 
$0  031 

88,093 
$0  027 

81,017 

$0  028 

79,536 
$0  025 

75,875 
$0  025 

72,495 
$0  028 

(6) 
(7) 

Increase  in  value  of  cat- 
tle per  cwt.  per  1,000 
Ib.  digestible  dry  mat- 
ter consumed  on  basis 
of  100  for  lot  1       .... 

100 

87 

90 

81 

81 

90 

(8) 

Percent  increase  in  value 
of  cattle  per  cwt.  per 
1,000     Ib.      digestible 
matter  consumed  

0065 

0059 

0066 

0065 

0069 

0083 

(9) 

Ditto    on    basis    of    100 
percent  for  lot  1  

100 

91 

102 

100 

106 

128 

(10) 

Increase  in  total  value  of 
cattle    per     1,000    Ib. 
digestible   dry   matter 
consumed  

$3  11 

$2  23 

$2  32 

$1  91 

$2  08 

$2  16 

(11) 

Ditto  on  basis  of  100  for 
lot  1  

100 

72 

75 

61 

67 

69 

(i?) 

Percent  increase  in  value 
per     hundred     weight 
combined  with  increase 
in  weight  for  1000  Ib. 
digestible    dry    matter 
consumed  

.652 

.487 

.545 

.497 

.574 

.541 

(13) 

Ditto  on  basis  of  100  for 
lot  1  

100 

75 

84 

76 

88 

98 

(14) 

With  respect  to  amount  of  gain  produced  the  feed  of  lots  1,  2,  3, 
4,  5,  and  6  was  effective  or  efficient  in  the  ratio  100  82,  82,  76,  83,  77 
respectively. 

With  respect  to  quality  of  the  increase,  or  its  increase  in  value  per 
hundred  weight,  the  ratio  was  100,  87,  90,  81,  81,  90. 

With  respect  to  the  percent  increase  in  value  per  hundred  weight  the 
ratio  was  100,  91,  102,  100,  106,  128. 


176  BULLETIN  No.  90.  [December, 

With  respect  to  combined  quantity  and  quality  of  gains,  or  total 
increase  in  value  of  the  cattle,  the  ratio  was  100,  72,  75,  61,  67,  69. 

With  respect  to  percent  increase  in  value  per  hundred  weight  com- 
bined with  increase  in  weight  the  ratio  was  100,  75,  84,  76,  88,  98. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  most  economical  disposition  of  the  feed 
consumed  was  made  by  the  fancy  selected  feeders,  excepting  as  to  their 
percent  increase  in  value  per  hundred  weight  for  feed  consumed.  As 
previously  noted,  these  steers  were  younger,  lighter,  and  of  more  uniform 
breeding  than  any  of  the  other  grades.  Another  notable  fact  is  that 
the  feed  was  clearly  more  efficient  for  increasing  the  value  of  the  cattle 
in  the  three  higher  than  in  the  three  lower  grades  when  both  quantity 
and  quality  of  gains  are  considered.  The  good  showing  made  by  the 
common  and  inferior  cattle  in  respect  to  the  percent  increase  in  value 
per  hundred  weight  for  a  given  quantity  of  feed,  and  in  respect  to  the 
percent  increase  in  value  per  hundred  weight  combined  with  their 
increase  in  weight  as  indicated  in  lines  10  and  14,  respectively,  is  due 
to  their  lower  original  cost  and  consequent  advantage  as  to  relative  or 
percent  increase  in  value.  The  efficiency  of  the  feed  as  shown  by  the 
percent  increase  in  value  per  hundred  weight  of  cattle  is  a  more  varia- 
ble factor  than  its  efficiency  as  indicated  by  the  actual  gain  in  weight 
and  its  value  per  hundred  weight,  so  that  the  result  in  line  12  can  be 
accepted  as  a  more  constant  and  reliable  comparison  of  the  grades  than 
can  those  of  lines  10  and  14,  because  any  market  condition  which 
changes  cost,  selling  price,  relative  increase  in  value  per  hundred  weight 
of  the  various  grades  would  materially  change  the  relative  percent  in- 
crease in  value  of  the  cattle.  These  results  as  a  whole  may  be  inter- 
preted as  pointing  to  a  relatively  more  economical  gain  by  the  higher 
grades,  and  a  widely  variable  relation  between  the  various  grades  as  to 
the  percent  of  increase  in  actual  value  which  they  will  produce  from  a 
given  amount  of  feed.  The  feed  was  least  efficient  as  to  value  per 
hundred  weight  of  gains  when  fed  to  the  medium  and  common  grades, 
least  efficient  as  to  combined  quantity  and  quality  of  gains  when  fed  to 
the  medium  cattle;  and  least  efficient  as  to  percent  increase  in  value 
per  hundred  weight  combined  with  increase  in  weight  in  the  case  of  the 
choice  and  medium  grades. 

GAINS  IN  WEIGHT  OF  PIGS  FOLLOWING  STEERS. 

As  has  been  stated  elsewhere  it  was  thought  advisable  to  eliminate 
the  pig  as  far  as  possible  in  this  test.  This  end  was  reached  by  grind- 
ing the  grain.  Five  pigs  were  placed  with  each  lot  of  sixteen  steers  at 
the  beginning  of  the  experiment.  As  will  be  seen  by  referring  to  the 
following  statement  the  steers  received  very  light  grain  rations  for  the 
first  two  months  and  made  correspondingly  small  increase  in  live  weight. 
One  of  the  pigs  in  lot  5  was  accidentally  killed  and  as  no  other  pig  was 


1903.]  FATTENING  STEERS.  177 

available  to  substitute  in  its  place  it  was  thought  best  to  reduce  the 
number  in  each  lot  to  correspond  with  that  in  lot  5.  During  the  last 
month  of  the  experiment  eight  pigs  were  allowed  to  follow  the  sixteen 
steers  in  lot  2.  These  eight  pigs  made  nearly  as  great  average  individ- 
ual gains  as  when  only  four  were  following  the  sixteen  steers.  From  this 
we  are  led  to  believe  that  from  the  time  the  steers  were  worked  up  to 
full  feed  until  the  end  of  the  experiment,  the  production  of  pork  might 
have  been  nearly  doubled.  It  should  not  be  assumed  that  the  large 
pork  production  of  the  pigs  in  lot  2  during  the  last  month  was  due  to 
the  fact  that  the  droppings  had  been  allowed  to  accumulate  for  a  long 
time  as  the  pens  were  cleaned  but  shortly  before  the  extra  pigs  were 
turned  into  them. 

The  gains  in  pork  by  lots  for  the  whole  period  were  as  follows : 
Lot  1.     419  pounds.  Lot  4.     520  pounds. 

*Lot  2.     500  pounds.  Lot  5.     420  pounds. 

Lot  3.     475  pounds.  Lot  6.     480  pounds. 

It  is  quite  remarkable  that  the  smallest  amount  of  pork  produced 
should  be  in  the  lot  where  the  steers  took  the  least  number  of  pounds 
of  dry  matter  to  produce  a  pound  of  beef,  and  that  where  pork  produc- 
tion was  greatest  the  feed  was  apparently  least  efficient  for  beef  produc- 
tion. The  relationship  between  the  high  efficiency  of  the  feed  for  beef 
production  and  minimum  pork  production  is  too  regular  to  escape  com- 
ment. Referring  to  the  table  exhibiting  the  average  number  of  pounds 
of  dry  matter  to  produce  a  pound  of  gain  in  beef  (Table  5),  it  will  be 
seen  that  for  efficiency,  the  lots  stand  in  the  following  order :  1,  5,  3,  2, 
6,  and  4,  while  for  pork  production,  they  have  the  following  order, 
beginning  with  the  lot  showing  smallest  production  of  pork:  1,  5,  3, 
6,  2,  and  4. 

The  steers  were  loaded  for  shipment  to  Chicago  on  Wednesday 
afternoon  May  27,  care  being  taken  to  have  each  lot  receive  as  nearly 
the  same  treatment  as  possible.  The  Champaign  weight  was  taken  on 
tEe  morning  of  the  27th  before  the  cattle  had  been  fed  or  watered. 
They  were  then  fed  their  regular  feed  of  grain  and  roughage,  except 
that  the  roughage  fed  on  the  morning  of  the  27th  and  that  fed  on  the 
previous  day  was  timothy  hay  instead  of  clover  or  alfalfa,  which  are 
liable  to  cause  some  bloating  in  transit.  In  case  the  roughage  fed  con- 
sists of  clover  or  alfalfa  bloating  can  usually  be  avoided  by  the  feed- 
ing of  timothy  hay  for  the  last  day  or  two  before  shipment.  The  steers 
were  also  given  free  access  to  water  between  9  and  10  A.  M.  after  being 
grained. 


*The  actual  amount  of  pork  produced  by  the  original  four  pigs  following  this 
lot  of  steers  throughout  the  experiment,  thus  making  it  possible  to  compare  the 
pork  produced  in  this  lot  with  that  produced  in  all  other  lots. 


178  BULLETIN  No.  90.  \December, 

TABLE  8. — NATURE  OP  GAINS.     SHIPPING  AND  SLAUGHTER  WEIGHTS  OF  STEERS. 


Lot  1. 

Lot  2. 

Lot  3. 

Lot  4. 

Lot5. 

Lot  6. 

Weight  16  steers, 
Champaign, 
May    27,    1903. 
Pounds    

22315  00 

25120  00 

23010.00 

22450.00 

21780  00 

21055  00 

Average  weight 
per       steer, 
Champaign. 
Pounds  

1394.68 

1570.00 

1438.12 

1403  .  12 

1361.25 

1315.93 

Weight  16  steers, 
Chicago,    May 
28,  1903  

21960  00 

24650.00 

22430.00 

21980.00 

21370  00 

20940  00 

Average  w  e  i  g  ht 
per    steer,    Chi- 
cago. Pounds  .  . 
Percentage  of 
shrinkage       i  n 
shipping  

1372.50 
1.59 

1540.62 
1.87 

1401.87 
2.08 

1373.75 
1.64 

1335.62 
1  88 

1308.75 
54 

Pounds  shrinkage 
per  steer    

22  18 

29  37 

36  25 

29  27 

25  62 

7  18 

Total      dressed 
weight    of    16 
carcasses  

13532.00 

15165.00 

13622.00 

13120.00 

12797.00 

12341.00 

Average  weight 
of  16  carcasses. 
Pounds.         .    . 

846  00 

947  00 

851  00 

820  00 

799  00 

777  00 

Percentage  of  car- 
cass    to    live 
weight  

61.62 

61  52 

60.74 

59.70 

59.88 

59  36 

Percentage  of  caul 
fat  

3.39 

3.50 

3.59 

3.77 

3.61 

3.83 

Percentage 
of  rough  fat  .  .  . 

6.07 

6.18 

6.98 

6.98 

6.46 

7.98 

Especial  care  was  taken  to  bed  the  cars  well  with  straw,  and  for 
convenience  in  keeping  the  lots  separate  only  sixteen  steers  were  put  in 
a  car.  The  yards  and  loading  chutes  at  Champaign  were  located  about 
a  mile  from  the  feed  lots.  In  driving  the  cattle  to  the  loading  chutes  and 
in  loading  them,  great  care  was  exercised  to  handle  them  quietly  and 
without  confusion,  that  they  might  arrive  on  the  market  with  as  little 
shrinkage  as  possible.  The  cattle  were  all  loaded  between  three  and 
six  o'clock  in  the  afternoon.  They  left  Champaign  at  7:30  p.  M.,  May 
27,  and  arrived  in  Chicago  at  5 :30  A.  M.,  May  28. 

By  referring  to  the  above  table  it  will  be  seen  that  the  shrinkage  per 
steer  was  light  with  all  the  lots,  but  remarkably  so  with  lot  6.  The 
highest  shrinkage  was  with  lot  3.  The  light  shrink  of  the  steers  in  lot 
6  is  undoubtedly  due  to  the  fact  that  they  "filled"  better  in  the  Yards  than 
the  steers  in  the  other  lots,  especially  much  better  than  those  in  lot  3.  No 
cause  is  known  why  lot  3  should  "fill"  the  poorest  and  lot  6  the  best. 
With  the  two  exceptions  noted,  the  percentages  of  shrinkage  were  quite 
uniform.  The  light  shrinkage  is  attributed  partly  to  the  quiet  handling 
in  driving  and  loading,  and  partly  to  the  feeding  of  timothy  hay  during 
the  last  two  days.  No  attempt  was  made  to  handle  the  cattle  in  such 


1903.]  FATTENING  STEERS.  179 

a  way  as  to  secure  a  "big  fill"  at  the  Union  Stock  Yards,  as  it  was 
desirable  that  there  should  be  nothing  to  interfere  with  the  normal  per- 
centages of  dressed  beef  in  each  lot  and  the  normal  relation  existing 
between  the  percentages  of  dressed  beef  in  the  various  lots. 

In  referring  to  the  above  table  it  may  be  said  that  the  most  strik-, 
ing  fact  brought  out  by  it  is  that  the  percentages  of  dressed  beef  bear 
precisely  the  same  relation  to  each  other  as  do  the  gains  in  live  weight. 
The  steers  in  lot  1  gained  the  most,  lot  2  came  next,  with  lots  3,  5,  4, 
and  6  following  in  the  order  named.  The  steers  in  lot  1  dressed  the 
highest,  61.62  percent,  those  in  lot  2  came  next,  with  lots  3,  5,  4  and  6 
following  in  the  order  named. 

These  higher  percentages  in  the  higher  grades  were  not  altogether 
due  to  any  advantage  in  condition  which  the  better  grades  had  over  the 
poorer  ones,  but  were  due  partly  at  least  to  the  differences  in  quality 
in  the  different  grades.  It  is  very  doubtful  whether  lots  1,  2,  3,  and  4 
were  really  in  as  high  market  condition  as  were  lots  5  and  6.  It  is 
another  question  of  course  whether  or  not  inferior  or  common  steers 
are  capable  of  taking  on  as  high  finish  and  absolute  fatness  as  the  bet- 
ter grades. 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  percentages  of  caul  fat  were  highest  in  the 
poorer  grades,  being  highest  in  lot  6  and  lowest  in  lot  1.  Again  lot  1 
had  the  least  rough  fat,  while  lot  6  had  the  most.  The  carcasses 
showed  conclusively  that  while  the  lower  grades  had  the  most  internal 
fat,  the  higher,  or  better  grades,  carried  thicker  surface  fat. 

While  unquestionably  the  condition  of  an  animal  has  great  influence 
upon  the  percentage  of  dressed  beef  it  will  yield,  quality  appears  to  be 
an  important  factor  as  well.  It  could  not  be  said  therefore,  that  the 
percentages  of  dressed  beef  were  low  in  the  poorer  grades  because  they 
were  not  as  well  finished,  or  in  other  words,  not  in  as  high  condition 
as  were  lots  1,  2,  and  3,  for  neither  the  appearance  of  the  steers  on  foot 
nor  their  carcasses  after  slaughter  gave  any  evidence  of  an  unfinished 
condition  in  these  grades.  If  there  was  an  advantage  in  the  condition 
of  the  steers  it  was  in  favor  of  lots  4,  5,  and  6,  which  were  doubtless 
nearer  their  maximum  limit  as  to  finish  than  were  the  better  grades, 
lots  1,  2,  and  3. 

The  following  table  shows  that  as  a  result  of  feeding  the  16  fancy 
feeders  in  lot  1  until  finished,  there  was  only  one  steer  that  would  not 
grade  as  prime.  This  steer  lacked  slightly  in  quality,  but  principally 
in  condition,  and  he  graded  as  choice.  After  slaughtering,  the  beef 
experts  in  Armour  &  Company's  city  beef  department  graded  all  the 
carcasses  as  No.  1. 


180  BULLETIN  No.  90.  [December, 

TABLE  9. — MARKET  GRADES  AS  FEEDERS,  FAT  CATTLE,  AND  BEEF. 


Market  grade  at  begin- 
ning of  experiment  as 
feeders. 

Market  grade  at  end  of 
experiment  as  fat 
cattle. 

Market  grade  of  beef 
after  slaughtering. 

Lot 
No. 

Name  of  grade  and 
number  of  steers  in 
each  grade. 

Grade  and  number  of 
steers  in  each  grade. 

Name  of  grade  and 
number  of  carcasses  in 
each  grade. 

1 

Fancy,             16 

(  Prime,          15  ) 
(  Choice,          1  \ 

No.  1,              16 

Prime,          14  ) 

2 

Choice,            16 

Choice,           1  [ 

No.  1,              16 

Good,             1  ) 

Prime,           3 

3 

Good,               16 

Choice,          5 

No.  1,              16 

Good,            8 

4 

Medium,         16 

Choice,          1 
Good,            4 

ATpHiiim           & 

No.  1,  Light,    4 

-M  I    1  I  I  I  1  1  I  1  ,                  O 

Common,      3 

No.  2  Tops,     12 

5 

Common,        16 

Medium,        6 
Common,       5 

No.  1  Light,     4 
No.  2  Tops,     12 

Good,            4 

No.  1  Light,      6 

6 

Inferior,          16' 

Medium,        6 

No.  2  Tops,      9 

Common,       6 

No.  3.                 1 

Of  the  16  choice  feeders  (lot  2)  fourteen  finished  as  prime,  one  as 
choice,  and  one  as  good.  All  the  carcasses  graded  as  No.  1  beef. 

Of  the  16  good  feeders  (lot  3)  three  finished  as  prime,  five  as  choice, 
and  eight  as  good.  All  the  carcasses  graded  as  No.  1. 

Of  the  16  medium  feeders  (lot  4)  one  finished  as  choice,  four  as  good, 
eight  as  medium,  and  three  as  common.  Four  of  the  carcasses  in  this 
lot  graded  as  No.  1  light,  and  the  remainder  as  No.  2  tops. 

Of  the  16  common  feeders  (lot  5)  five  finished  the  test  as  good,  six  as 
medium,  and  five  as  common  beeves.  The  grading  of  the  beef  was  the 
same  as  that  in  lot  4,  namely,  four  carcasses  graded  as  No.  1  light,  and 
twelve  as  No.  2  tops. 

Of  the  16  inferior  feeders  (lot  6)  four  finished  as  good,  six  as  medium, 
and  six  as  common.  Six  carcasses  graded  as  No.  1  light,  nine  as  No.  2 
tops,  and  one  as  No.  3  beef. 

Both  this  and  the  preceding  table  illustrate  forcibly  the  possibility 
of  securing  reasonably  high  percentages  of  dressed  beef  of  satisfactory 
grades  even  with  low  bred  steers  if  intelligently  fed  to  as  high  a  finish 
as  they  are  capable  of  taking. 

The  records  of  this  experiment  all  emphasize  the  great  economic 
importance  of  condition  as  a  factor,  in  marketing  and  in  determining  the 
grade  of  beef.  It  is  possible  that  we  have  not  emphasized  this  factor 
enough.  Perhaps  in  the  campaign  that  has  been  waged  to  improve  the 
quality  of  beef  cattle,  condition  has  failed  to  receive  tbe  attention  which 
its  importance  demands.  This  is  but  a  natural  result  of  confining  inves- 


1903.]  FATTENING  STEERS.     .  181 

tigations  in  beef  production  to  the  live  animal.  It  is  safe  to  say  that 
there  are  more  differences  between  the  well-bred  steer  and  the  mongrel- 
bred  feeding  steer  when  on  foot  in  the  feed  lot  than  there  are  after  they 
are  fed  to  a  finish,  slaughtered,  and  hung  on  the  hooks. 

When  fat-cattle  prices  rule  high  and  there  is  a  tendency  for  the 
prices  for  such  cattle  to  advance,  there  is  a  wide  range  in  values  between 
the  highest  grade  of  beef  cattle,  namely,  prime  steers,  and  the  lowest 
grade,  common  rough  steers.  In  other  words,  a  premium  is  then  paid 
for  cattle  possessing  prime  quality  or  a  high  percentage  of  beef  blood. 

THE  FINANCIAL  ASPECT  OF  THE  EXPERIMENT. 

Many  feeders  will  be  interested  in  the  following  financial  statement. 
This  phase  of  the  subject  will  be  discussed  from  two  standpoints  on  the 
basis  of: 

First,  a  steady  or  stationary  market,  obviously  the  one  which  should 
be  looked  upon  as  a  normal  one,  with  which  other  market  conditions 
should  be  compared. 

Second,  a  falling  or  declining  market. 

COST  OF  FEEDS. 

The  feeds  used  were  cracked  corn  (prepared  by  running  ears  through 
an  ensilage  machine  which  cut  the  cobs  up  into  small  pieces  and 
cracked  the  com),  corn  and  cob  meal,  cotton  seed  meal,  old  process 
linseed  oil  meal,  clover  hay,  alfalfa,  timothy  hay,  and  corn  stover. 

These  feeds  were  valued  f .  o.  b.  cars,  Champaign,  Illinois,  as  follows : 
Cracked  corn  and  corn  and  cob  meal. . .  .*$12.00  per  ton 

Cotton  seed  meal 24.50  per  ton 

0.  P.  linseed  oil  meal 25.00  per  ton 

Clover  hay 8.00  per  ton 

Alfalfa    10.00  per  ton 

Timothy  hay  12.00  per  ton 

Corn  stover 3.00  per  ton 

From  the  time  the  experiment  began  until  the  evening  of  February 
15.  the  corn  used  was  rather  soft  and  chaffy;  it  would  be  called  very 
poor  in  quality  and  not  well  adapted  for  securing  large  gains  for  amount 
consumed.  For  convenience,  all  the  corn  is  figured  at  the  same  price. 

No  charge  is  made  in  the  financial  statement  for  labor  in  caring  for 
the  steers,  interest  on  the  investment,  or  for  bedding,  nor  on  the  other 
hand,  is  any  value  assigned  to  the  manure  made  by  the  steers.  It  i? 
believed  that  the  manure  would  more  than  balance  these  expense  items. 

*$12.00  per  ton,  or  35  cents  per  bushel  of  70  pounds  plus  10  cents  per  cwt.  for 
grinding. 


182  BULLETIN  No.  90.  [December, 

FINANCIAL  STATEMENT  ON  BASIS  OF  NORMAL  OR  STATIONARY  MARKET. 

Lot  1,  16  Steers. 

To  16  Steers,  14,953  lb.,  at  $4.75  per  cwt $710.27 

26.447  tons  cracked  corn,  and  corn  and  cob  meal  at  $12  per  ton 317.36 

1.914  tons  cotton  seed  meal,  at  $24.50  per  ton 46 .89 

1.358  tons  O.  P.  linseed  oil  meal  at  $25.00  per  ton 33 .95 

3.885  tons  clover  hay,  at  $8.00  per  ton  31 .08 

5.500  tons  alfalfa,  at  $10  per  ton 55 .00 

2.810  tons  timothy  hay,  at  $12  per  ton 33 .72 

.845  tons  corn  stover,  at  $3  per  ton 2 . 54 

Freight  Champaign  to  Chicago,  commission,  yardage,  feed,  and  other 

expenses 40 . 00 

Total  expenditures $1270 .81 

By  16  Steers,  21,960 lb.,  at  $7  per  cwt $1537.20 

By  419  lb.  Pork,  at  $5.75  per  cwt 24 .09 

Total  receipts $1561 .29 

Total  expenditures 1270 .81 

Total  gain $290.48 

Profit  per  steer 18 . 155 

Lot  2,  16  Steers. 

To  16  Steers,  17,836  lb.,  at  $4.55  per  cwt $  811 .54 

31.983  tons  cracked  corn  and  corn  and  cob  meal,  at  $12.00  per  ton.  .  .  383.80 

2.270  tons  cotton  seed  meal,  at  $24.50  per  ton 55 . 62 

1.692  tons  O.  P.  linseed  oil  meal,  at  $25.00  per  ton  42 .30 

4.503  tons  clover  hay,  at  $8.00  per  ton 36 .02 

6.769  tons  alfalfa,  at  $10.00  per  ton 67 .69 

3.281  tons  timothy  hay,  at  $12.00  per  ton 39 .37 

.845  tons  corn  stover,  at  $3.00  per  ton 2 . 54 

Freight  Champaign  to  Chicago,  commission,  yardage,  feed,  and  other 

expenses 40 . 00 

Total  expenditures $1478.88 

By  16  Steers,  24,650  lb.,  at  $6.90  per  cwt $1700.85 

By  500  lb.  Pork,  at  $5.75  per  cwt . .       28.75 

Total  receipts $1729 . 60 

Total  expenditures 1478 .88 

Total  gain, $250.72 

Profit  per  steer 15 . 67 

Lot  3,  16  Steers. 

To  16  Steers,  16,305  lb.,  at  $4.20  per  cwt $684.81 

29.335  tons  cracked  corn  and  corn  and  cob  meal,  at  $12.00  per  ton  ....  352 .02 

2.066  tons  cotton  seed  meal,  at  $24.50  per  ton 50 .62 

1.530  tons  O.  P.  linseed  oil  meal,  at  $25.00  per  ton 38.25 

4.372  tons  clover  hay,  at  $8.00  per  ton 34.98 

6.109  tons  alfalfa,  at  $10.00  per  ton 61 .09 

2.999  tons  timothy  hay,  at  $12.00  per  ton 35 .99 

.845  tons  corn  stover,  at  $3.00  per  ton 2 . 54 

Freight  Champaign  to  Chicago,  commission,  yardage,  feed,  and  other 

expenses 40 . 00 


Total  expenditures $1300.30 

By  16  Steers,  22,430  lb.,  at  $6.50  per  cwt $1457 .95 

By  475  lb.  Pork,  at  $5.75  per  cwt 27.31 

Total  receipts $1485.26 

Total  expenditures 1300 .30 

Total  gain $184.96 

Profit  per  steer 11 .56 


1903.]  FATTENING  STEEBS.  183 

Lot  4,  16  Steers. 

To  16  Steers,  16,355  lb.,  at  $3.85  per  cwt $  629 .67 

28.651  tons  cracked  corn  and  corn  and  cob  meal,  at  $12.00  per  ton. . .  343.81 

2.069  tons  cotton  seed  meal,  at  $24.50  per  ton 50 .69 

1.470  tons  O.  P.  linseed  oil  meal,  at  $25.00  per  ton 36 .75 

4.410  tons  clover  hay,  at  $8.00  per  ton 35 .28 

5.969  tons  alfalfa,  at  $10.00  per  ton 59 .69 

2.981  tons  timothy  hay,  at  $12.00  per  ton 35 .77 

.845  tons  corn  stover,  at  $3.00  per  ton 2.54 

Freight  Champaign  to  Chicago,  commission,  yardage,  feed,  and  other 

expenses 40 . 00 

Total  expenditures $1234 .20 

By  16  Steers,  21,980  lb.,  at  $5.80  per  cwt $1274 .84 

By  520  lb.  Pork,  at  $5.75  per  cwt 29 .90 

Total  receipts $1304.74 

Total  expenditures 1234 .20 

Total  gain $     70.54 

Profit  per  steer 4 .41 

Lot  5,  16  Steers. 

To  16  Steers,  15,458  lb.,  at  $3.60  per  cwt $556.49 

27.204  tons  cracked  corn  and  corn  and  cob  meal,  at  $12.00  per  ton. . .  326.45 

1.941  tons  cotton  seed  meal,  at  $24.50  per  ton 47 . 55 

1.409  tons  of  O.  P.  linseed  oil  meal,  at  $25.00  per  ton 35 .23 

4.332  tons  clover  hay,  at  $8.00  per  ton 34 .66 

5.662  tons  of  alfalfa  hay,  at  $10.00  per  ton 56.62 

2.881  tons  of  timothy  hay,  at  $12.00  per  ton 34.57 

.845  tons  corn  stover,  at  $3.00  per  ton 2 . 54 

Freight,  Champaign  to  Chicago,  commission,  yardage,  feed,  and  other 

expenses 40 . 00 

Total  expenditures $1134.11 

By  16  Steers,  21,370  lb.,  at  $5.50  per  cwt $1175.35 

By  420  lb.  Pork,  at  $5.75  per  cwt 24.15 

Total  receipts $1199.50 

Total  expenditures 1134 . 11 

Total  gain $     65.39 

Profit  per  steer 4 .09 

Lot  6,  16  Steers. 

To  16  Steers,  15,448  lb.,  at  $3.35  per  cwt $517.51 

25.801  tons  cracked  corn  and  corn  and  cob  meal,  at  $12.00  per  ton  . .  .  309.61 

1.871  tons  cotton  seed  meal,  at  $24.50  per  ton 45 .84 

1.311  tons  O.  P.  linseed  oil  meal,  at  $25.00  per  ton 32.78 

4.132  tons  clover  hay,  at  $8.00  per  ton 33 .06 

5.361  tons  alfalfa  hay,  at  $10.00  per  ton 53 .61 

2.983  tons  timothy  hay,  at  $12.00  per  ton 35 .80 

.845  tons  corn  stover,  at  $3.00  per  ton 2 .54 

Freight,  Champaign  to  Chicago,  commission,  yardage,  feed,  and  other 

expenses 40 . 00 

Total  expenditures $1070.75 

By  16  Steers,  20,940  lb.,  at  $5.40  per  cwt $1130.76 

By  480  lb.  Pork,  at  $5.75  per  cwt 27 .60 

Total  receipts $1158.36 

Total  expenditures 1070.75 

Total  gain $     87.61 

Profit  per  steer 5 . 48 


184  BULLETIN  No.  90.  [December, 

From  the  above  it  will  be  seen  that  under  normal  conditions,  that  is 
when  the  market  remains  stationary,  the  best  grades  of  feeding  cattle 
return  to  the  feeder  the  greatest  profit.  So  striking  is  this  fact  that 
in  the  preceding  financial  statement  the  fancy  feeders,  on  the  basis  of 
a  stationary  market,  would  have  returned  to  the  feeder  over  three  times 
as  much  per  steer  as  the  inferior  feeders.  It  is  well  for  the  cattle 
feeder  to  consider  the  factors  which  make  it  possible  to  make  such  a 
showing.  Such  a  favorable  showing  for  the  better  grade  of  feeding  cat- 
tle could  not  be  made  if  the  margins  between  the  price  of  choice  feeders 
and  prime  steers  were  not  so  large  as  those  between  inferior  feeders 
and  common  rough  and  medium  steers  of  the  beef  cattle  class. 

Profits  may  be  realized  on  smaller  margins  in  the  finishing  of  the 
better  than  the  lower  grades  of  feeders.  With  the  higher  initial  cost  of 
the  better  grades  the  cost  of  feed  becomes  relatively  of  less  consequence. 
This  being  the  case  it  has  been  found  to  be  almost  an  invariable  rule 
that  the  higher  the  price  of  feeds,  the  more  sure  are  the  better  grades  to 
return  to  the  cattle  feeder  larger  profits  than  the  feeding  of  the  poorer 
grades.  When  the  cattle  market  is  in  any  thing  like  a  normal  condition, 
the  margins  are  as  great,  if  not  on  the  average  greater,  with  the  better 
than  with  the  lower  grades. 

Tables  11  and  12  will  be  found  of  unusual  interest  to  the  student 
of  the  cattle  feeding  enterprise.  These  tables  show  the  financial  status 
of  the  various  lots  at  the  end  of  the  first  fifty-six  days  and  every  four 
weeks  thereafter,  except  in  case  of  the  last  period  which  was  but  eleven 
days.  It  will  be  observed  that  this  statement  is  made  not  only  upon  the 
basis  of  a  normal  or  stationary  market,  but  also  on  the  basis  of  an 
abnormal  or  a  falling  market,  such  as  obtained  during  the  winter  season 
of  1902-1903.  It  is  thought  that  a  statement  at  the  end  of  the  first 
thirty  days  would  be  of  little  value,  as  no  one  would  seriously  consider 
marketing  cattle  such  as  were  used  in  this  experiment,  at  the  end  of 
thirty  days'  light  grain  feeding.  In  the  several  columns  in  Table  11  is 
recorded  the  cost  of  the  steers  in  the  various  lots  up  to  the  dates  as  given 
in  the  marginal  columns.  This  cost  includes  the  initial  market  value 
of  the  cattle,  the  cost  of  feed,  and  the  estimated  expense  of  marketing. 
These  items  are  entered  separately  that  the  reader  may  determine  for 
himself  which  are  items  of  greatest  importance  in  the  various  lots  and  at 
stated  intervals  during  the  progress  of  the  experiment. 

To  make  the  financial  statements  of  the  several  periods  comparable 
in  the  following  statement,  it  was  necessary  to  use  Champaign  instead 
of  Chicago  weights  at  the  end  of  the  experiment.  This  explains  the 
apparent  discrepancy  between  the  statement  of  profits  shown  on  pages 
182,  183,  and  190,  as  Chicago  and  not  Champaign  weights  were  used  in 
computing  profits  shown  on  pages  182  and  183. 


1903.] 


FATTENING  STEERS. 


185 


TABLE  11. — FINANCIAL  STATEMENT  AT  DIFFERENT  DATES  ON  BASIS  OF  BOTH 
FALLING  AND  STATIONARY  MARKET  CONDITIONS.     CHAMPAIGN  WEIGHTS. 


Financial  statement  end  of 
56  days,  Nov.  29,  1902, 
to  Jan.  24,  1903. 

DISBURSEMENTS. 

MARKET  PRICE 

PER  CWT. 

RECEIPTS. 

Station- 
ary. 

Falling. 

Station- 
ary. 

Falling. 

Station- 
ary. 

Falling. 

Lot  1,  16  Steers. 
To  14953  Ib.  at  $4.75  .  .  . 
Feed,  56  days  

$710.27 
124.29 
40.00 

$710.27 
124.29 
40.00 

Freight,  etc  

By  16340  Ib.  beef  

$5.25 

$5.00 

$857.85 
6.04 

$817.00 
6.04 
51.52 

105  Ib.  pork  

Falling  market,  loss  .... 

Stationary  market,  loss  .  . 

10.67 

874.56 

874.56 

874.56 

874.56 

Lot  2,  16  Steers. 
To  17836  Ib.  at  $4.55  .  .  . 
Feed,  56  days  

811.54 
144.14 
40.00 

811.54 
144.14 
40.00 

Freight  etc  

By  19145  Ib.  beef  

5.10 

4.80 

976.40 
10.93 

918.96 
10.93 
65.79 

190  Ib.  pork  . 

Falling  market,  loss  .... 

Stationary  market,  loss  .  . 

8.35 

.  .995.68 

995.68 

995.68 

995.68 

Lot  3,  16  Steers. 
To  16305  Ib.  at  $4.20  .  .  . 
Feed,  56  days  

684.81 
137.56 
40.00 

684.81 
137.56 
40.00 

Freight,  etc  

By  17350  Ib.  beef     

4.60 

4.40 

798.10 

7.48 

763.40 
7.48 
91.49 

130  Ib.  pork  

Falling  market,  loss  .... 

Stationary  market,  loss  .  . 

56.79 

862.37 

862.37 

862.37 

862.37 

Lot  4,  16  Steers. 
To  16355  Ib.  at  $3.85  .  .  . 
Feed,  56  days  

629.67 
135.02 
40.00 

629.67 
135.02 
40.00 

Freight,  etc  

By  17225  Ib.  beef  

4.25 

4.15 

732.06 
9.20 

714.84 
9.20 
80.65 

160  Ib.  pork  

Falling  market,  loss  .... 

Stationary  market,  loss.  . 

63.43 

804.69 

804.69 

804.69 

804.69 

Lot  5,  16  Steers. 
To  15458  Ib.  at  $3.60  .  .  . 
Feed  56  days     .... 

556.49 
130.97 
40.00 

556.49 
130.97 
40.00 

Freight  etc.  . 

By  16305  Ib.  beef  

4.10 

3.90 

668.51 

7.48 

635.90 
7.48 
84.08 

130  Ib.  pork  

Falling  market,  loss  .... 

. 

Stationary  market,  loss  .  . 

51.47 

727.46 

727.46 

727.46 

727.46 

Lot  6,  16  Steers. 
To  15448  Ib.  at  $3.35  .  .  . 
Feed,  56  days       .    .    . 

517.51 

126.89 
40.00 

517.51 

126.89 
40.00 

Freight   etc.  .        .    . 

By  16545  Ib.  beef  

3.85 

3.65 

636.98 
6.61 

603.89 
6.61 
73.90 

115  Ib.  pork  . 

Falling  market,  loss  .... 

Stationary  market,  loss  .  . 

40.81 

684.401     684.40 

684.40 

684.40 

186 


BULLETIN  N"o.  90. 


[December, 


TABLE  11 — Continued. 


Financial  statement  end  of 
84  days,  Nov.  29.  1902, 
to  Feb.  21,  1903. 

DISBURSEMENTS. 

MARKET  PRICE 

PER    CWT. 

RECEIPTS. 

Station- 
ary. 

Falling. 

Station- 
ary. 

Falling. 

Station- 
ary. 

Falling. 

Lot  1,  16  Steers. 
To  14953  Ib.  at  $4.75  .  .  . 
Feed  84  days 

$710.27 
216.22 
40.00 

$710.27 
216.22 
40.00 

Freight  etc 

By  17695  Ib  beef     .    ... 

$5.55 

$5.00 

$982.07 
10.64 

$884.75 
10.64 
71.10 

185  Ib  pork  .         ... 

Falling  market  loss 

Stationary  market,  profit 

26.22 

992.71 

966.49 

992.71 

966.49 

Lot  2,  16  Steers. 
To  17836  Ib.  at  $4.55  .  .  . 
Feed  84  days  

811.54 
250.94 
40.00 

811.54 
250.94 
40.00 

Freight,  etc  

By  20400  Ib.  beef     

5.55 

4.80 

1132.20 
16.38 

979.20 
16.38 
106.90 

285  Ib.  pork  

Falling  market,  loss  .... 

Stationary  market,  profit 

46.10 

1148.58 

1102.48 

1148.58 

1102.48 

Lot  3,  16  Steers. 
To  16305  Ib.  at  $4.20  .  .  . 
Feed,  84  days  

684.81 
234.44 
40.00 

684.81 
234.44 
40.00 

Freight,  etc  

By  18495  Ib.  beef  

5.10 

4.65 

943.25 
12.65 

860.02 
12.65 
86.58 

220  Ib  pork     ...... 

Falling  market,  loss  .... 

Stationary  market,  loss  .  . 

3.35 

959.25 

959.25 

959.25 

959.25 

Lot  4,  16  Steers. 
To  16355  Ib.  at  $3.85  .  .  . 
Feed  84  days 

629.67 
231.38 
40.00 

629.67 
231.38 
40.00 

Freight,  etc  

By  18190  Ib.  beef  

4.65 

4.50 

845.84 
14.66 

818.55 
14.66 
67.84 

255  Ib.  pork  . 

Falling  market,  loss 

Stationary  market,  loss  .  . 

40.55 

901.05 

901.05 

901.05 

901.05 

Lot  5,  16  Steers. 
To  15458  Ib.  at  $3.60  .  .  . 
Feed,  84  days  .... 

556.49 
222.29 
40.00 

556.49 
222.29 
40.00 

Freight,  etc  

By  17305  Ib.  beef  

4.35 

4.40 

752.77 
12.08 

761.42 
12.08 
45.28 

210  Ib.  pork  . 

Falling  market,  loss  .... 

Stationary  market,  loss  .  . 

53.93 

818.78 

818.78 

818.78 

818.78 

Lot  6,  16  Steers. 
To  15448  Ib.  at  $3.35  .  .  . 
Feed,  84  days       .    . 

517.51 

217.90 
40.00 

517.51 
217.90 
40.00 

Freight,  etc  

By  17375  Ib.  beef  

4.35 

4.40 

755.81 
11.79 

7.81 

764.50 
11.79 

205  Ib.  pork  

Stationary  market,  loss. 

Falling  market,  profit.  .  . 

.88 

775.41 

776.29 

775.41 

776.29 

1903.] 


FATTENING  STEERS. 
TABLE   1 1  — Continued. 


187 


Financial  statement  end  of 
112  days,  Nov.  29,  1902, 
to  March  21,  1903. 

DISBURSEMENTS. 

MARKET  PRICE 

PER    CWT. 

RECEIPTS. 

Station- 
ary. 

Falling. 

Station- 
ary. 

Falling. 

Station- 
ary. 

Falling. 

Lot  1,  16  Steers. 
To  14953  Ib.  at  $4.75  .  .  . 
Feed,  112  days  

$710.27 
302.98 
40.00 

$710.27 
302.98 
40.00 

Freight,  etc  

By  18955  Ib.  beef  

$5.90 

$5.20 

$1118.35 
14.38 

$985.66 
14.38 
53.21 

250  Ib.  pork  

Falling  market,  loss     .    . 

Stationary  market,  profit 

79.48 

1132.73 

1053.25 

1132.73 

1053.25 

Lot  2,  16  Steers. 
To  178-36  Ib.  at  $4.55  .  .  . 
Feed,  112  days  

811.54 
354.99 
40.00 

811.54 
354.99 
4.0.00 

Freight,  etc  

By  21625  Ib.  beef  

5.90 

5.05 

1275.88 
18.11 

1092.06 
18.11 
96.36 

315  Ib.  pork  

Falling  market,  loss  .... 

Stationary  market,  profit 

87.46 

1293.99 

1206.53 

1293.99 

1206.53 

Lot  3,  16  Steers. 
To  16305  Ib.  at  $4.20  .  .  . 
Feed,  112  days  

684.81 
329.02 
40.00 

684.81 
329.02 
40.00 

Freight,  etc  

By  19615  Ib.  beef  

5.45 

4.75 

1069.02 
16.39 

931.71 
16.39 
105  .  73 

285  Ib.  pork  

Falling  market,  loss  .... 

Stationary  market,  profit 

31.58 

1085.41 

1053.83 

1085.41 

1053.83 

Lot  4,  16  Steers. 
To  16355  Ib.  at  $3.85  .  .  . 
Feed,  112  days  

629.67 
326.42 
40.00 

629  .  67 
326.42 
40.00 

Freight,  etc.  . 

By  19415  Ib.  beef  

5.05 

4.65 

980.46 
17.82 

902.80 

17.82 
75.47 

310  Ib.  pork  

Falling  market,  loss 

Stationary  market,  profit 

2.19 

998.28 

996.09 

998.28 

996.09 

Lot  5,  16  Steers. 
To  15458  Ib.  at  $3.60  .  .  . 
Feed,  112  days  

556.49 
310.49 
40.00 

556.49 
310.49 
40.00 

Freight,  etc  

By  18520  Ib.  beef  

4.55 

4.50 

842.66 
13.51 

833.40 
13.51 
60.07 

235  Ib.  pork  

Falling  market,  loss 

Stationary  market,  loss.  . 

50.81 

906.98 

906.98 

906.98 

906.98 

Lot  6,  16  Steers. 
To  15448  Ib.  at  $3.35  .  .  . 
Feed,  112  davs  

517.51 
302.44 
40.00 

517.51 

302.44 
40.00 

Freight,  etc  

By  183'60  Ib.  beef  

4.65 

4.50 

853  .  74 
13.80 

826.20 
13.80 
19.95 

240  Ib.  pork  

Falling  market,  loss  .... 

Stationary  market,  profit 

7.59 

867.54 

859.95 

867.54 

859.95 

188 


BULLETIN  No.  90. 


TABLE  11 — Continued. 


Financial  statement  end  of 
140  days,  Nov.  29,  1902, 
to  April  18,  1903. 

DISBURSEMENTS. 

MARKET  PRICE 

PER    CWT. 

RECEIPTS. 

Station- 
ary. 

Falling. 

Station- 
ary. 

Falling. 

Station- 
ary. 

Falling. 

Lot  1,  16  Steers. 
To  14953  Ib.  at  $4.75  .  .  . 
Feed,  140  days  

$710.27 
390.46 
40.00 

$710.27 
390.46 
40.00 

Freight,  etc.  .   . 

By  20285  Ib.  beef  

$6.25 

$5.40 

$1267.81 
18.69 

$1095.39 
18.69 
26.65 

325  Ib.  pork  . 

Falling  market,  loss  .... 

Stationary  market,  profit 

145.77 

1286.50 

1140.73 

1286.50 

1140.73 

Lot  2,  16  Steers. 
To  17836  Ib.  at  $4.55  .  .  . 
Feed,  140  days 

811.54 
468.30 
40.00 

811.54 
468.30 
40.00 

Freight,  etc  

By  23275  Ib.  beef  

6.30 

5.45 

1466.33 
21.85 

1268.49 
21.85 
29.50 

380  Ib.  pork  

Falling  market,  loss  .... 

Stationary  market,  profit 

168.34 

1488.18 

1319.84 

1488.18 

1319.84 

Lot  3,  16  Steers. 
To  16305  Ib.  at  $4.20  .  .  . 
Feed,  140  days  

684.81 
431.97 
40.00 

684.81 
431.97 
40.00 

Freight,  etc  

By  21160  Ib.  beef  

5.95 

5.15 

1259.02 
19.55 

1089.74 
19.55 
47.49 

340  Ib.  pork  . 

Falling  market,  loss  .... 

Stationary  market,  profit 

121.79 

1278.57 

1156.78 

1278.57 

1156.78 

Lot  4,  16  Steers. 
To  16355  Ib.  at  $3.85  .  .  . 
Feed,  140  days     .    . 

629.67 
427.20 
40.00 

629.67 
427.20 
40.00 

Freight,  etc  

Bv  20845  Ib.  beef  

5.45 

5.00 

1136.05 
21.85 

1042.25 
21.85 
32.77 

380  Ib.  pork  

Falling  market,  loss  .... 

Stationary  market,  profit 

61.03 

1157.90 

1096.87 

1157.90 

1096.87 

Lot  5,  16  Steers. 
To  154581b.  at  $3.60  ... 
Feed,  140  davs     .    .  . 

556.49 
404.63 
40.00 

556.49 
404.63 
40.00 

Freight,  etc.  . 

By  20105  Ib.  beef  

5.15 

4.85 

1035.41 
16.96 

975.09 
16.96 
9.07 

295  Ib.  pork  

Falling  market,  loss  .... 

Stationary  market,  profit 

51.25 

1052.37 

1001.12 

1052.37 

1001.12 

Lot  6,  16  Steers. 
To  15448  Ib.  at  $3.35  .  .  . 
Feed,  140  days  

517.51 
390.32 
40.00 

517.51 
390.32 
40.00 

Freight,  etc  

By  19925  Ib.  beef  

5.10 

4.85 

1016.18 
18.69 

966.36 
18.69 

325  Ib.  pork  . 

Falling  market,  profit   .  . 

37.22 

Stationary  market,  profit 

87.04 

1034.87 

985.05 

1034.87 

985.05 

1903.] 


FATTENING  STEERS. 

TABLE  11 — Continued. 


189 


Financial  statement  end  of 
168  days,  Nov.  29,  1902, 
to  May  16,  1903. 

DISBURSEMENTS. 

MARKET  PRICE 

PER    CWT. 

RECEIPTS. 

Station- 
ary. 

Falling. 

Station- 
ary. 

Falling. 

Station- 
ary. 

Falling. 

Lot  1,  16  Steers. 
To  14953  Ib.  at  $4.75  .  .  . 
Feed,  168  days  

$710.27 
483.11 
40.00 

$710.27 
483.11 
40.00 

Freight,  etc  

Bv  21765  Ib.  beef  

$6.75 

$5.50 

$1469.14 
22.31 

$1197.08 
22.31 
13.99 

388  Ib.  pork  

Falling  market,  loss  .... 

Stationary  market,  profit 

258.07 

1491.45 

1233.38 

1491.45 

1233.38 

Lot  2,  16  Steers. 
To  17836  Ib.  at  $4.55  .  .  . 
Feed,  168  days  

811.54 
583.04 
40.00 

811.54 
583.04 
40.00 

Freight,  etc  

By  24710  Ib.  beef  

6.65 

5.45 

1643.22 
26.45 

1346.70 
26.45 
61.43 

460  Ib.  pork  . 

Falling  market,  loss  .... 

Stationary  market,  profit 

235.09 

1669.67 

1434.58 

1669.67 

1434.58 

Lot  3,  16  Steers. 
To  16305  Ib.  at  $4.20  .  .  . 
Feed,  168  days  

684.81 
535.19 
40.00 

684.81 
535.19 
40.00 

Freight,  etc.  .        .    . 

By  22415  Ib.  beef  

6.35 

5.15 

1423.35 
25.01 

1154.37 
25.01 
80.62 

435  Ib.  pork  

Falling  market,  loss  .... 

Stationary  market,  profit 

188.36 

1448.36 

1260.00 

1448.36 

1260.00 

Lot  4,  16  Steers. 
To  16355  Ib.  at  $3.85  .  .  . 
Feed,  168  days  

629.67 
526.95 
40.00 

629.67 
526.95 
40.00 

Freight,  etc  

By  21920  Ib.  beef  

5.65 

5.00 

1238.48 
27.60 

1096.00 
27.60 
73.02 

480  Ib.  pork  

Falling  market,  loss  .... 

Stationary  market,  profit 

69.46 

1266.08 

1196.62 

1266.08 

11  (Hi.  02 

Lot  5,  16  Steers. 
To  154581b.  at  $3.60  ... 
Feed,  168  days  

556.49 
500.04 
40.00 

556.49 
500.04 
40.00 

Freight,  etc  

By  21245  Ib.  beef  

5.35 

4.85 

1136.61 
20.41 

1030.38 
20.41 
45.74 

355  Ib.  pork  

Falling  market,  loss  .... 

Stationary  market,  profit 

60.49 

1157.02 

1096.53 

1157.02 

1096.53 

Lot  6,  16  Steers. 
To  15448  Ib.  at  $3.35  .  .  . 
Feed,  168  days  .  .    .    . 

517.51 
479  .  69 
40.00 

517.51 
479  .  69 
40.00 

Freight,  etc.  ... 

Bv  20825  Ib.  beef  

5.30 

4.85 

1103.73 
23.58 

1010.01 
23.58 
3.61 

410  Ib.  pork  . 

Falling  market,  loss  .... 

Stationary  market,  profit 

90.11 

1127.31    1037.20 

1127.31 

1037.20 

190 


BULLETIN  No.  90. 


[December. 


TABLE  11 — Continued. 


Financial  statement  end  of 
179  days,  Nov.  29,  1902, 
to  May  28,  1903. 

DISBURSEMENTS. 

MARKET  PRICE 

PER  CWT. 

RECEIPTS. 

Station- 
ary. 

Falling. 

Station- 
ary. 

Falling 

Station- 
ary. 

Falling. 

Lot  1,  16  Steers. 
To  14953  Ib.  at  $4.75  .  .  . 
Feed   179  days 

$710.27 
520.54 
40.00 

$710.27 
520.54 
40.00 

Freight,  etc  

By  22315  Ib.  beef  

$7.00 

$5.40 

$1562.05 
24.09 

$1205.01 
24.09 
41.71 

419  Ib.  pork  

Falling  market,  loss 

Stationary  market,  profit 

315.33 

1586.14 

1270.81 

1586.14 

1270.81 

Lot  2,  16  Steers. 
To  17836  Ib.  at  $4.55  .  .  . 
Feed,  179  days  

811.54 
627.34 
40.00 

811.54 

627.34 
40.00 

Freight,  etc.  .  .  .  '.  

By  25120  Ib.  beef  

6.90 

5.40 

1733.28 
28.75 

1356.48 

28.75 
93.65 

500  Ib.  pork  . 

Falling  market,  loss  .... 

Stationary  market,  profit 

283.15 

1762.08 

1478.88 

1762.03 

1478.88 

Lot  3,  16  Steers. 
To  16305  Ib.  at  $4.20  .  .  . 
Feed,  179  days     

684.81 
575.49 
40.00 

684.81 
575.49 
40.00 

Freight  etc  

By  23010  Ib.  beef  

6.50 

5.15 

1495.65 
27.31 

1185.01 
27.31 

87.98 

475  Ib.  pork  .".  

Falling  market,  loss  .... 

Stationary  market,  profit 

222  .  66 

1522.96 

1300.30 

1522.96 

1300.30 

Lot  4,  16  Steers. 
To  16355  Ib.  at  $3.85  .  .  . 
Feed    179  days 

629  .  67 
564.53 
40.00 

629.67 
564.53 
40.00 

Freight,  etc  

By  22450  Ib.  beef  

5.80 

4.90 

1302.10 
29.90 

1100.05 
29.90 
104.25 

520  Ib.  pork  

Falling  market,  loss     .  .  . 

Stationary  market,  profit 

97.80 

1332.00 

1234.20 

1332.00 

1234.20 

Lot  5,  16  Steers. 
To  15458  Ib.  at  $3.60  .  .  . 
Feed,  179  days  

556.49 
537.62 
40.00 

556.49 
537.62 
40.00 

Freight,  etc  

By  21780  Ib.  beef  

5.50 

4.80 

1197.90 
24.15 

1045.44 
24.15 
64.52 

420  Ib.  pork  

Falling  market,  loss  .... 

Stationary  market,  profit 

87.94 

1222.05 

1134.11 

1222.05 

1134.11 

Lot  6,  16  Steers. 
To  15448  Ib.  at  $3.35  .  . 
Feed,  179  days  

517.51 
513.24 
40.00 

517.51 

513.24 
40.00 

Freight,  etc  

By  21055  Ib.  beef  

5.40 

4.80 

1136.97 
27.60 

1010.64 
27.60 
32.51 

480  Ib.  pork  

Falling  market,  loss  .... 

Stationary  market  profit 

93.82 

1164.57 

1070.75 

1164.57 

1070.75 

1903.] 


FATTENING  STEEES. 


191 


W 

§ 


p 

CO 


^  to 

CO   X 

*i 
(0 

CO 
CO 

1C 

CO 

CO 

§ 

•* 

O5 

(N 

00 

-SO   oj 
flOSTJ 
C^OS 
£  nrT^- 

O 

£ 

»c 

CO 

CO 
00 
(M 

<N 
<N 
IN 

l> 

O3 

t^ 

00 

CO 
O5 

•giST* 

c3       **-< 
-S   >^0 

85 

OJ 

r—  1 

l> 

1C 

o 

00 
O5 

»c 

IM 

IM 

1C 

»c 

^ 

6 

O 

>-3 

r-  1 
•* 

CO 
O5 

t^ 

00 

•* 

0 
1—  1 

2 

(N 

CO 

^  03 

CO   ^> 

-)j 

y3 

t~ 

0 

§ 

CO 
CO 

co 
•* 

OS 

•* 

1—  1 

-Jf  O   03 

COSTS 
g^oo 

G  -0-CO 

2 

PH 

00 

to 

(N 

wa 

CO 
(N 

00 
00 

1—  1 

01 

co 

s 

o 
OS 

£2^ 

3>?0 

03 
O3 

Oi 
O3 

CO 

•* 

(N 

co 

<N 

o 

•* 
t>- 

1—  1 
CO 

02^73 
S  a 
B 

O 
hJ 

CO 

i-H 

1—  1 
CO 

§ 

CO 

l> 

>c 

•* 

CO 

w£ 

•+J 

<n 

t^ 
l> 

:% 

O5 
t- 

CO 

0 

•  »c 

•(N 

<N-* 
<N  O 

+a  O    c3 
C  OS-Q 
O)  i—  1 

a     .0 

e 

PM 

>o 

•* 

1—  1 

•00 

•co 

•  i-H 

i—l 
N 
i—l 

r—  1 

CO 

•  »—  1 

•  1C 

t^t^ 

CO  00 

-+^>    T-H 

5  ^"8 

03 

ta 

to 

O 

1C 

O5 
^* 

r» 
t^ 

t>.    • 

o    • 

CC  0^3 

•<  c 

V 

3 

CD 
<N 

Oi 
(N 

l> 

"*< 

<N 

CO 

o    • 

~  03 
CO    >% 

-1J 
* 

•00 

•Tf 

CO 
•^ 

00 

S) 

Oi 

i-H 

•OS 
•  1C 

-gO   03 
C  OS  73 

it« 

G  _Ti-i 

O 

£ 

:g 

t^ 

00 

CO 

c* 

•l> 

£?<-< 
03     •  «*- 

4-3   «H   O 

03 

1» 

»—  i 

<N 

CO 
CO 

CO 

t^ 

t^ 

<* 

r^  —i 

C  00 

1C      • 

os    • 

COjj.g 
5 

O 

hJ 

co 

1C 

CO 
O5 

It* 

o 

1C 

r» 

00 
CO  1C 

os    • 

i-H 

• 

co~  >> 

cC 

4^0     c? 

C  OS  -rt 

e 

£r-<~ 

CM 

c      •* 

C     Ton 

-S? 
ca    .  o 

O3 

o 

T-H 

i 

00  "3 
1C  CO 

•<*  »c 

00  1C 

00  CO 
(N  O3 

r—  1 

00 

M  ®  e 

fe  § 

O 
J 

^-( 

l> 

CO 

o 

I—  1 

CO  CO 
00 

t^  o 

CO-* 

1C  CO 
•*  1C 

t> 

4-0^ 

O 

^2  o3 

SS"73 

PH 

s  .* 

s  •*  *° 

•9C4«H 

03     .   O 

03 

(N  t^ 

1C  CO 

o»c 

t^  CO 

O5O5 

Tf    (^ 

1C  CO 

CO  Tjl 

00  t* 

o-* 

O  —  i 

os  oo 

"41 

O 

^ 

1-1  O 
»C  1-1 

1C  00 
CO 

^H  CO 
O5  1C 

O  CO 
00  CO 

•*  ^H 

CO  1C 

CO  O 

l^   Tj< 

f't 

.   83 

bC  C 
«   2 

.  03 
il.  = 

c  o 

£, 

.  ei 

tc  c 
c  2 

03 
bb  C 

a  o 

ng- 
onary. 

s- 

.  f. 

bCC 

c  c 

—  — 
^^ 
fs-OD 

^—   — 

^^ 

feco 

^—   — 

^^ 

foO2 

^3   03 
c3  ^j 

fee/} 

"M    =3 
03  ^_ 

feO3 

:sj 

feO! 

M 

i-H 

(N 

CO 

•* 

1C 

<p 

192  BULLETIN  No.  90.  [December, 

It  will  be  seen  in  Table  12  that  at  no  time  during  the  course  of  the 
experiment  would  it  have  been  possible  to  sell  any  of  the  six  lots  of 
steers  profitably  on  the  basis  of  a  falling  or  the  actual  market  except 
in  the  case  of  the  inferior  cattle.  These  could  have  been  marketed 
{profitably  at  the  close  of  the  third  or  fifth  four-week  periods  of  the  ex- 
periment. Up  to  the  end  of  the  second  period,  January  24,  1903.  none 
of  the  grades  could  have  been  sold  profitably  on  either  the  actual  market 
or  a  market  identical  with  that  of  November  29,  1902,  when  the  experi- 
ment began.  February  21,  three  months  from  the  opening  of  the 
experiment,  the  fancy  and  choice  lots  could  have  been  sold  at  a  profit 
on  the  basis  of  a  stationary  market.  At  the  end  of  the  fourth  period, 
and  thereafter,  any  of  the  lots  would  have  sold  profitably  on  a  stationary 
market  excepting  the  common  grade  at  the  close  of  the  fourth  period. 

These  results  go  to  show  that  the  early  months  of  the  feeding  period 
are  not  of  necessity  the  most  profitable  months  as  many  feeders  sup- 
pose. Indeed  in  this  case  the  opposite  was  true.  The  fact  that  all  of  the 
cattle  were  given  a  partial  grain  ration  during  the  four  weeks  preceding 
the  test  doubtless  detracted  from  the  gains  which  would  otherwise 
have  been  shown  in  the  first  period,  because  the  first  increase  in  weight 
by  steers  in  the  average  feed  lot  is  attributed  largely  to  "fill." 

Under  normal  market  conditions,  that  is,  when  prevailing  prices  of 
beef  steers  remain  about  stationary,  the  better  grades  of  feeding  cattle  be- 
gin returning  a  profit  sooner  than  do  the  lower  grades,  as  is  shown  by  the 
summary  in  Table  12.  For  example,  the  fancy  and  choice  steers  could 
have  been  profitably  disposed  of  four  weeks  earlier  than  either  the  good, 
medium,  common,  or  inferior  grades,  assuming  a  steady  market  through- 
out the  experiment.  Further,  on  April  18,  the  earliest  date  at  which  the 
statement  shows  a  balance  to  the  credit  of  all  the  grades,  on  a  stationary 
market,  the  fancy,  choice,  and  good  cattle  had  earned  an  average  profit 
relatively  more  than  twice  as  great  as  that  of  the  three  lower  grades. 

That  conditions  were  unusual  and  unfavorable  for  making  it  possible 
to  show  that  any  one  of  the  lots  was  fed  at  a  profit  in  the  feeding 
experience,  the  results  of  which  are  detailed  in  this  bulletin,  in  no  way 
lessens  the  value  of  this  experiment.  The  prices  prevailing  for  feeds 
were  normal,  the  unusual  factor  was  that  of  the  radical  decline  in 
the  market.  However,  the  data  derived  are  independent  of  the  particu- 
lar market  conditions  at  this  time  and  serve  as  a  basis  for  calculating 
profits  or  losses  under  varying  market  conditions. 

Under  the  conditions  prevailing  at  the  time  of  this  experiment,  all 
lots  were  fed  at  a  loss.  The  records  of  this  experiment  show  definitely 
the  extent  and  cause  of  such  losses,  which  were  occasioned  by  the  decline 
in  cattle  values  during  the  six  months  of  this  experiment.  It  will  be 
seen  that  the  different  lots  did  not  prove  equally  unprofitable.  A  care- 
ful study  of  the  various  factors  which  affect  profit  and  loss  in  steer 


1903.]  FATTENING  STEEBS.  193 

feeding  will  reveal  in  each  instance  the  factor  or  factors  most  concerned 
in  bringing  about  these  variations  in  losses. 

Lot  6,  the  inferior  feeders,  were  fed  with  smallest  loss  under  this 
declining  market.  Table  13  shows  that  steers  such  as  represented  lot  6 
declined  least  in  the  market.  This  indicates  that  less  loss  was  occasioned 
by  this  factor  here  than  in  any  other  lot.  This  one  fact  would  undoubt- 
edly account  for  the  smaller  loss,  but  it  is  not  the  only  advantage  this 
lot  possessed.  Table  5  shows  that  these  steers  made  the  smallest 
relative  and  absolute  gains  in  beef  during  feeding.  Notwithstanding 
this  fact  they  were  in  good  marketable  condition.  Gains  in  live  weight 
of  steers  are  generally  made  at  a  loss,  that  is  a  pound  of  gain  in  beef 
usually  costs  more  than  it  will  sell  for  on  the  market,  hence,  that  lot 
of  steers  which  can  be  increased  in  value  per  hundred  weight  by  putting 
on  the  least  number  of  pounds  gain,  other  things  being  equal,  will  have 
an  advantage  over  other  steers  putting  on  greater  gains,  but  increasing 
no  more  rapidly  in  value  per  hundred  weight.  There  was  also  a  very 
slight  advantage  in  this  lot  over  some  of  the  others  in  the  amount  of 
pork  produced. 

Lot  1  stands  second  in  its  financial  showing  under  the  falling  mar- 
ket, Table  13.  Its  advantage  over  other  lots  came  from  the  fact  that, 
as  is  shown  in  Table  5,  they  made  by  far  the  best  gains  for  food  con- 
sumed. That  this  is  an  all  important  factor  will  be  better  appreciated 
when  it  is  known  that  in  practically  all  other  respects  this  lot  was  at 
a  decided  disadvantage.  The  disadvantages  referred  to  were  that  they 
made  larger  gains  than  any  other  lot,  hence  sustained  greater  loss  from 
this  factor;  their  increase  per  hundred  weight  during  fattening  was  the 
least  of  all  lots,  and  they  were  the  lightest  weight  at  the  beginning. 
The  amount  of  pork  produced  was  the  smallest.  The  importance  of 
securing  gains  in  live  weight  economically  is  still  further  emphasized  in 
the  showing  made  by  the  steers  in  lot  5,  which  stood  next  to  lot  1  as 
economical  producers.  A  portion  of  what  they  lost  in  economy  of  pro- 
duction was  offset  by  the  fact  that  they  stood  second  highest  in  increase 
in  value  per  hundred  weight  during  feeding.  Only  two  other  lots  made 
smaller  gains.  These  factors  account  for  the  relatively  good  showing 
of  lot  5. 

Lot  3  made  a  better  financial  showing  than  lot  2,  because  the  increase 
in  value  per  hundred  weight  during  feeding  was  greater;  the  cost  of  a 
pound  of  gain  was  less,  the  gains  smaller  and  the  pork  produced  was 
greater. 

The  steers  in  lot  2  did  not  make  as  good  gains  for  food  consumed  as 
some  other  lots;  this  was  undoubtedly  partially  due  to  the  fact  that 
they  were  the  largest  framed  and  heaviest  weight  steers  in  the  experi- 
ment. The  advantage  they  possessed  in  having  greater  weight  at  the  out- 
set, which  would  normally  amount  to  a  considerable  item  in  the 


194 


BULLETIN  No.  90. 


[December, 


increase  per  hundred  weight  on  original  weight,  was  not  in  this  instance, 
an  important  factor,  as  the  actual  increase  per  hundred  weight  during 
feeding  was  small.  This  lot  was  again  at  a  disadvantage  financially  in 
making  relatively  large  gains. 

But  little  can  be  said  for  lot  4;  they  made  a  bad  showing  in  a  most 
unfavorable  year.  Their  gains  in  beef  were  expensive.  They  apparently 
possessed  but  few  of  the  advantages  accorded  either  the  better  or  the 
poorer  grades,  and  were  possessed  of  some  of  the  disadvantages  found 
to  be  present  in  each  of  them. 

TABLE  13. — ACTUAL  DECLINE  IN  MARKET  VALUE  PER  HUNDRED  WEIGHT  BY 

MONTHS  ON  BASIS  OF  MARKET  OF  NOVEMBER  29, 

1902,  AND  TOTAL  DECLINE. 


Actual 

Nov.  29 

Jan.  24 

Feb.  21 

Mar.  21 

Apr.  18 

May  16 

Total, 

margin 

Lot 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

Nov.  29 

per  cwt. 

No. 

Jan.  24, 
56  days. 

Feb.  21, 
28  days. 

Mar.  21, 
28  days. 

Apr.  18, 
28  days. 

May  16, 
28  days. 

May  28, 
11  days. 

to 
May  28, 
179  days. 

from 
Nov.  29  to 
May  28, 

179  days. 

1 

$0.25 

$0.30 

$0.15 

$0.15 

$0.40 

$0.35 

$1.60 

$0.65 

2 

.30 

.45 

.10 

.00 

.35 

.30 

1.50 

.85 

3 

.20 

.25 

.25 

.10 

.40 

.15 

1.35 

.95 

4 

.10. 

.05 

.25 

.05 

.20 

.25 

.90 

1.05 

5 

.20 

*+.25 

.10 

.25 

.20 

.20 

.70 

1.20 

6 

.20 

*+.25 

.20 

.10 

.20 

.15 

.60 

1.45 

*The  +  sign  here  is  used  to  signify  that  instead  of  a  decline  in  the  market  for 
such  steers  as  represented,  lots  5  and  6,  there  was  an  actual  advance  of  twenty-five 
cents  per  hundred  weight  during  the  second  four  weeks  of  the  test.  The  market  for 
those  grades  therefore  was  practically  the  same  on  January  24,  1903,  as  it  was  at 
the  beginning  of  the  experiment,  November  29,  1902. 

With  the  two  exceptions  noted  there  was  a  steady  but  somewhat 
irregular  decline  in  the  market  for  all  grades  from  November  29  to 
May  28.  This  decline  was  much  greater  in  the  better  grades  than  in 
the  poorer  ones.  This  is  due  partly  to  the  fact  that  the  prices  for 
fancy,  choice,  and  good  feeding  cattle,  and  those  prevailing  for  prime, 
choice,  and  good  beeves  were  relatively  high,  the  former  because  there 
was  a  great  demand  for  feeders  possessing  quality,  and  the  latter  because 
just  at  the  Christmas  holiday  season,  prices  for  good  fat  cattle  are  apt 
to  be  relatively  higher  than  those  for  the  lower  grades. 

As  the  holidays  passed  and  the  season  advanced,  the  supply  of  prime, 
choice,  and  good  steers  was  so  liberal  that  prices  dropped  on  these  grades 
more  rapidly  than  on  others. 

In  the  last  column  will  be  found  the  actual  margin  of  selling  over 
purchase  price  for  each  grade.  By  comparing  these  margins  with  the 
figures  in  the  next  column  to  the  left,  it  will  be  seen  that,  except  in 
lots  4,  5,  and  6,  the  margins  of  actual  market  transactions  were  not  as 
great  as  the  actual  decline  in  the  market.  To  put  it  in  another  way, 
under  existing  market  conditions  the  market  declined  more  rapidly  than 
the  steers  increased  in  value  during  the  fattening  process.  This  is  a 
most  unusual  circumstance,  but  one  which  the  cattle  feeder  is  all  too 
frequently  obliged  to  meet. 


1903.] 


FATTENING  STEEES. 


TABLE  14. — VALUE  OF  STEERS  BY  PERIODS  ON  BASIS 

MARKET. 


195 

OF  STATIONARY  AND  FALLING 


Av'rage 

Lot  1. 

Lot  2. 

Lot  3. 

Lot  4. 

Lot  5. 

Lot  6. 

by  peri- 

ods for 

6  lots. 

Nov. 

Actual  market  value  per 

29. 

cwt.  beginning  of  ex- 

1902. 

periment  

$4.75 

$4.55 

$4.20 

$3.85 

$3.60 

$3.35 

Increase  in  market  value 

per  cwt.  in  4  weeks  on 
basis    of    stationary 

market  

.25 

.20 

.20 

.20 

.25 

.25 

$0.255 

Dec. 

Market    value    per    cwt. 

27, 

basis    of    stationary 

1903. 

market  

5.00 

4.75 

4.40 

4.05 

3.85 

3.60 

Actual  market  value  per 

cwt.   basis  of  existing 

market  conditions  .... 

Increase  in  market  value 

per  cwt.  in  4  weeks  on 
basis    of    stationary 

market  

.25 

.35 

.20 

.20 

.25 

.25 

.250 

Jan. 

24, 

Market  value  per  cwt.  ba- 

• 

1903. 

sis  of  stationary  market 

5.25 

5.10 

4.60 

4.25 

4.10 

3.85 

Actual  market  value  per 

cwt.   basis  of  existing 

market  conditions  .... 

5.00 

4.80 

4.40 

4.15 

3.90 

3.65 

Increase  in  market  value 

per  cwt.  in  4  weeks  on 

basis    of    stationary 

market  

.30 

.45 

.50 

.40 

.25 

.50 

.400 

Feb. 

Market    value    per    cwt. 

21, 

basis   of    stationary 

1903. 

market  

5.55 

5.55 

5.10 

4.65 

4.35 

4.35 

Actual  market  value  per 

cwt.  basis  of  existing 

market  conditions  .... 

5.00 

4.80 

4.65 

4.50 

4.40 

4.40 

Increase  in  market  value 

per  cwt.  in  4  weeks  on 

basis    of    stationary 

market  

.35 

.35 

.35 

.40 

.20 

.30 

.325 

Mar. 

Market    value    per    cwt. 

21, 

basis    of    stationary 

1903. 

market     

5.90 

5.90 

5.45 

5.05 

4.55 

4.65 

Actual  market  value  per 

cwt.   basis  of  existing 

market  conditions  .... 

5.20 

5.05 

4.75 

4.65 

4.50 

4.50 

Apr. 

Increase  in  market  value 

18, 

per  cwt.  in  4  weeks  on 

1903. 

basis    of    stationary 

market  . 

.35 

.40 

.50 

.40 

.60 

.45 

.45 

196 


BULLETIN  No.  90. 

TABLE  14 — Continued. 


[December, 


Lot  l. 

Lot  2. 

Lot  3. 

Lot  4. 

Lot  5. 

Lot  6. 

Av'rage 
by  peri- 
ods for 
6  lots. 

Apr. 

Market  value  per  cwt. 
basis  of  stationary 
market  

$6.25 

$6.30 

$5.95 

$5.45 

$5.15 

$5.10 

18, 
1903. 

Actual  market  value  per 
cwt.  basis  of  existing 
market  conditions  .... 

Increase  in  market  value 
per  cwt.  in  4  weeks  on 
basis  of  stationary 
market  

5.40 
.50 

5.45 
.35 

5.15 

.40 

5.00 
20 

4.85 
.204 

4.85 
20 

$  308 

May 
16, 
1903. 

Market  value  per  cwt. 
basis  of  stationary 
market  

6.75 

6.65 

6.35 

5.65 

5.35 

5.30 

Actual  market  value  per 
cwt.  on  basis  of  exist- 
ing market  conditions.. 

5.50 

5.45 

5.15 

5.00 

4.85 

4.85 

. 

Increase  in  market  value 
per  cwt.  in  11  days  on 
basis  of  stationary 
market  

25 

25 

15 

15 

15 

10 

175 

May 
28, 
1903. 

Market  value  per  cwt. 
basis  of  stationary 
market  

7.00 

6.90 

6  50 

5  80 

5  50 

5.40 

Actual  market  value  per 
cwt.  on  basis  of  exist- 
ing market  conditions.. 

5.40 

5.40 

5.15 

4.90 

4.80 

4.80 

Actual  total  increase  per 
cwt.  in  179  days  on 
basis  market  condi- 
tions Nov.,  1902,  to 
May,  1903  

.65 

.85 

.95 

1.05 

1.20 

1.45 

Total  increase  per  cwt. 
on  basis  of  stationary 
market,  Nov.,  1902.  .  . 

2  25 

2  35 

2  30 

1  95 

1  90 

2.05 

Average  increase  per  cwt. 
per  month  on  basis  of 
stationary  market  .... 

.375 

.392 

.383 

.325 

.317 

.342 

.356 

The  foregoing  tabulated  statement  illustrates  a  feature  of  the  inves- 
tigation under  study.  Among  the  many  difficult  and  important  questions 
which  the  cattle  feeder  must  decide  is,  at  what  stage  of  the  fattening 
process  may  steers  be  marketed  with  greatest  profit?  How  largely  does 
the  answer  to  this  question  depend  upon  the  grade  of  cattle  fed?  And 
finally,  do  market  fluctuations  have  a  bearing  upon  the  answer  to  this 
question?  From  the  above  table  it  will  be  seen  that  on  a  basis  of  a  sta- 
tionary market  there  would  have  been  a  margin  between  the  buying 


1903.]  FATTENING  STEEHS.  197 

and  selling  price  in  lot  1  of  $2.25  per  hundred  weight;  in  lot  2,  of 
$2.35;  lot  3,  $2.30;  lot  4,  $1.95;  lot  5,  $1.90;  and  lot  6,  $2.05.  These 
margins  as  will  subsequently  be  shown  would  have  made  handsome 
profits  for  the  cattle  feeder  on  all  the  grades.  Unfortunately  for  the 
financial  showing  made  in  the  actual  transactions  of  this  experiment 
the  margins  over  the  cost  price  were  very  small  indeed.  They  were  as 
follows:  In  lot  1,  $0.65;  in  lot  2,  $0.85;  in  lot  3,  $0.95;  in  lot  4,  $1.05; 
in  lot  5,  $1.20;  and  in  lot  6,  $1.45  per  hundred  weight. 

The  margins  recorded  in  the  table  as  estimated  on  the  basis  of  a 
stationary  market  are  somewhat  unusual  in  that  the  margins  for  the 
better  grades  are  rather  too  large  as  compared  with  those  of  the  lower 
grades.  It  is  true  that  the  actual  margins  computed  on  the  basis  of 
prevailing  market  conditions  are  much  more  unusual.  The  variations 
in  margins  from  the  normal  as  based  upon  a  stationary  market  are  too 
slight,  however,  to  render  a  comparison  of  margins  between  the  grades 
impracticable;  in  fact,  there  is  much  of  value  that  can  be  learned  from 
such  comparison.  While  it  is  true  that  by  using  the  Christmas  holiday 
market  as  the  basis  for  values  of  beef  cattle  on  stationary  market  the 
estimated  values  of  prime  steers  as  compared  with  medium  and  common 
grades  of  beef  cattle  are  relatively  high,  it  is  equally  true  that  the  esti- 
mated value  of  fancy,  choice,  and  good  feeding  cattle  was  correspondingly 
high  at  this  season  in  1902.  The  average  increase  per  hundred  weight 
a  month  on  the  basis  of  a  stationary  market  for  the  three  best  grades, 
lots  1,  2,  and  3,  was  slightly  more  than  38  cents.  The  average  increase 
per  hundred  weight  a  month  on  a  basis  of  actual  market  conditions 
in  the  three  best  grades  was  but  little  more  than  13  cents. 

Two  factors  contributed  to  make  the  margins  exhibited  in  lots  4,  5, 
and  6  characteristic.  First,  the  market  did  not  decline  either  as  much 
or  as  rapidly  as  in  the  better  grades,  and  second,  these  grades  increased 
in  value  per  hundred  weight  rather  more  rapidly  than  is  common.  Much 
therefore  is  to  be  gained  by  making  a  careful  study  of  the  financial 
statement  concerning  lots  4,  5,  and  6. 

In  general,  it  may  be  said  that  where  two-year-old  steers  are  gaining 
at  the  rate  of  two  and  one-half  pounds  per  steer  a  day  on  rations  calcu- 
lated to  produce  that  finish  demanded  in  the  market,  and  that  in  a  rea- 
sonably short  time  with  feeds  at  average  prices,  they  will  increase  in 
market  value  at  the  rate  of  from  $0.20  to  $0.30  per  hundred  weight  a 
month,  providing  of  course  the  market  does  not  decline  in  the  meantime. 

Another  point  that  should  be  noted  in  this  table  is  that  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  experiment  the  market  value  of  the  various  lots  was  such 
that  lot  1  was  $0.20  per  hundred  weight  more  valuable  than  lot  2.  Lot 
2  was  $0.25  per  hundred  weight  more  valuable  than  lot  3;  lot  3,  $0.35 
per  hundred  weight  more  valuable  than  lot  4;  lot  4,  $0.25  per  hundred 
weight  more  valuable  than  lot  5 ;  lot  5,  $0.25  more  valuable  per  hundred 


198  BULLETIN  No.  90.  [December^ 

weight  than  lot  6;  lot  1  was  $1.40  more  valuable  per  hundred  weight 
than  lot  6. 

At  the  end  of  the  experiment  these  differences  were  much  less 
marked;  lots  1  and  2  were  sold  on  the  market  at  the  same  price.  They 
were  considered  only  $0.25  per  hundred  weight  more  valuable  for 
slaughter  than  lot  3,  and  lot  3  $0.25  per  hundred  weight  more  valuable 
than  lot  4.  Lots  5  and  6  were  considered  of  equal  value  for  killing 
purposes  and  but  $0.10  per  hundred  weight  less  valuable  than  lot  4. 
When  marketed  lot  1  was  considered  only  $0.60  per  hundred  weight 
more  valuable  than  lot  6. 

As  bearing  on  the  financial  aspect  of  this  experiment  and  cattle 
feeding  in  general  it  may  be  said  that  market  values  are  bound  to  vary 
considerably  from  those  obtained  during  this  experiment.  Cost  of  gains 
under  favorable  conditions  need  not  be  materially  different  from  those 
in  this  experiment.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  for  the  feeder  to 
have  come  out  even  and  neither  to  have  made  nor  lost  by  the  feeding  of 
the  various  grades  in  this  experiment  it  would  have  been  necessary 
to  have  secured  margins  as  follows:  Lot  1,  $0.93;  lot  2,  $1.13;  lot  3, 
$1.48;  lot  4,  $1.63;  lot  5,  $1.59;  and  lot  6,  $1.63.  This  illustrates  a 
fact  which  every  cattle  feeder  should  understand,  viz.,  that  the  lower  the 
price  at  which  feeding  cattle  are  purchased,  no  matter  whether  this  low 
price  is  chiefly  due  to  a  prevailing  dull  and  low  market  or  to  the  fact  of 
the  cattle  being  poor  in  grade,  the  larger  the  margin  must  be  to  secure 
protection  against  loss. 

The  accompanying  table  illustrates  the  relative  gains  of  about  half 
of  the  individual  steers  in  the  different  lots.  On  January  19,  just 
fifty  days  after  the  experiment  began,  a  metal  ear  label  was  inserted  in 
the  left  ear  of  each  steer  in  lot  6;  on  the  following  day,  January  20, 
ear  labels  were  inserted  in  the  ears  of  lots  4  and  5;  on  January  21  in 
lots  2  and  3;  and  on  January  22  in  lot  1.  The  weight  of  each  steer  was 
taken  just  before  the  label  was  inserted.  It  was  the  intention  to  weigh 
each  steer  at  the  end  of  the  experiment  and  thus  determine  the  indi- 
vidual gains  of  each  one  in  each  lot.*  This  was  found  to  be  im- 
practicable as  many  of  the  labels  were  soon  lost  and  the  placing  of 
duplicates  would  have  been  a  constant  annoying  and  disturbing  factor 
to  be  reckoned  with  in  any  results  which  final  records  might  show.  It 
was  thought  advisable,  therefore,  not  to  attempt  to  secure  a  complete 
record  of  individual  gains  but  simply  of  those  steers  that  had  fortu- 
nately retained  their  ear  labels  to  the  last.  This  question  of  individual 
gains  was  not  a  part  of  the  experiment  as  planned  and  the  absence  of 
these  records  does  not  in  any  way  affect  data  which  will  be  used 
to  determine  the  object  of  this  experiment.  The  incomplete  record 

*Experience  at  this  Station  goes  to  show  that  the  metal  ear  label  is  much  less 
liable  to  tear  out  when  placed  on  the  upper  edge  than  on  the  lower  edge,  as  recom- 
mended. 


1903.] 


FATTENING  STEERS. 


199 


TABLE  15. — INDIVIDUAL  WEIGHTS  AND  GAINS  OF  STEERS. 


Lot  No. 

No.  of 
steer. 

Weight  of 
steer. 
Jan.  22. 

Wt.  of  steer, 
Champaign, 
May  27. 

Gain  in 
125  days. 

Average 
daily 
gain. 

1 

101 

885 

1315 

430 

3.44 

1 

102 

905 

1315 

410 

3.28 

1 

103 

1020 

1285 

265 

2.12 

1 

104 

1065 

1455 

390 

3.12 

1 

107 

1120 

1600 

480 

3.84 

1 

108 

965 

1250 

285 

2.28 

1 

111 

990 

1315 

325 

2.60 

1 

112 

1050 

1445 

395 

3.16 

1 

113 

1045 

1425 

380 

3.04 

Jan.  21 

126  days 

2 

119 

1245 

1675 

430 

3.41 

2 

121 

1265 

1580 

315 

2.50 

2 

122 

1135 

1465 

330 

2.61 

2 

123 

1295 

1670 

375 

2.97 

2 

126 

1185 

1400 

215 

1.70 

3 

135 

985 

1295 

310 

2.46 

3 

137 

1120 

1380 

260 

2.06 

3 

138 

1010 

1440 

430 

3.41 

3 

140 

1350 

1730 

380 

3.01 

3 

147 

975 

1410 

435 

3.45 

3 

148 

1030 

1440 

410 

3.25 

Jan.  20 

127  days 

4 

151 

1140 

1250 

110 

.866 

4 

153 

1025 

1385 

360 

2.83 

4 

157 

1085 

1375 

290 

2.28 

4 

158 

1130 

1455 

325 

2.55 

4 

159 

1250 

1540 

290 

2.28 

4 

163 

1125 

1465 

340 

2.67 

4 

164 

1075 

1375 

300 

2.36 

5 

165 

950 

1300 

350 

2.75 

5 

166 

1030 

1350 

320 

2.51 

5 

168 

1135 

1500 

365 

2.87 

5 

169 

1070 

1460 

390 

3.07 

5 

171 

1005 

1285 

280 

2.20 

5 

172 

1070 

1340 

270 

2.12 

5 

173 

985 

1300 

315 

2.48 

5 

175 

1030 

1300 

270 

2.12 

5 

176 

990 

1375 

385 

3.03 

5 

178 

895 

1210 

315 

2.48 

5 

179 

985 

1400 

415 

3.26 

5 

180 

1130 

1475 

345 

2.71 

Jan.  19 

128  days 

6 

181 

1060 

1370 

310 

2.42 

6 

182 

1045 

1390 

345 

2.69 

6 

183 

925 

1225 

300 

2.34 

6 

184 

1180 

1395 

215 

1.67 

6 

185 

925 

1215 

290 

2.26 

6 

186 

1000 

1315 

315 

2.46 

6 

188 

955 

1290 

335 

2.61 

6 

189 

1020 

1425 

405 

3.16 

6 

190 

1160 

1445 

285 

2.22 

6 

192 

965 

1295 

330 

2.57 

6 

193 

1055 

1305 

250 

1.95 

6 

195 

1110 

1190 

80 

.625 

6 

196 

925 

1175 

250 

1.95 

200  BULLETIN  No.  90.  [December, 

illustrates  a  point  or  two  worthy  of  notice;  first,  that  as  far  as  these 
records  go,  the  steer  that  made  the  greatest  average  daily  gain  was 
steer  No.  107  in  lot  1,  while  the  steer  making  the  lowest  average  daily 
gain  was  No.  195  in  lot  6.  The  former  gained  at  the  rate  of  3.840 
pounds  a  day,  while  the  latter  gained  only  .625  of  a  pound  per  day. 
This  difference  is  extreme  and  must  be  looked  upon  as  an  individual 
rather  than  a  grade  characteristic.  Careful  study  of  the  above  table 
reveals  the  fact  that  the  steers  in  the  better  grades  were  not  only  more 
rapid  gainers,  but  also  much  more  uniform  in  their  daily  gains  than 
the  steers  in  the  lower  grades.  The  steers  with  high  average  daily  gains 
in  lot  1  were  the  rule  while  the  steers  with  such  averages  in  lot  6  were 
very  unusual  indeed.  The  individual  gains  in  the  other  lots  indicate 
that  the  better  bred  the  steer  the  more  uniform  and  consistent  his  gains. 

Steer  No.  107  in  lot  1  gaining  nearly  four  pounds  per  day  for  four 
months,  and  that  under  carload  feed  lot  conditions  on  a  steer  well 
fleshed  as  a  feeder,  but  shows  the  opportunity  and  illustrates  the  possi- 
bilities in  store  for  the  systematic,  painstaking  breeder  of  beef  cattle 
who  will  continue  to  select  his  animals  to  improve  them  in  this  rapid 
gaining,  early  maturing  quality.  Perhaps  no  other  characteristic  of  beef 
cattle  has  received  greater  attention  at  the  hands  of  breeders  than  this 
one.  The  fact  that  this  one  steer  practically  stands  in  a  class  by  him- 
self indicates  that  there  is  still  opportunity  for  further  improvement 
along  this  line.  This  opportunity  should  be  made  the  most  of  by  breed- 
ers of  beef  cattle  until  it  can  no  longer  be  said  that  beef  production  can 
only  be  engaged  in  by  well-to-do  farmers  since  returns  are  slow  and 
capital  is  too  long  tied  up  without  cash  returns. 

It  would  indeed  be  interesting  to  know  the  relative  cost  of  beef  on 
these  two  steers  to  which  reference  has  been  made,  namely  No.  107  in 
lot  1  and  No.  195  in  lot  6.  This  of  course  could  not  be  determined  in 
this  test  without  seriously  interfering  with  the  car-lot  conditions  be- 
lieved to  be  so  essential  as  a  practical  feature  of  this  experiment.  In 
general  it  is  clear  that  the  steer  making  the  greatest  gains  consumed  the 
most  feed.  He  was  always  one  of  the  first  at  the  trough  as  soon  as  the 
feed  was  distributed  and  among  the  last  to  leave  it;  when  he  did,  he 
seemed  satisfied  and  contented.  He  had  a  proud,  stately  carriage  that 
would  become  individuals  of  any  species  of  the  animal  kingdom.  On  the 
contrary,  the  slow  gaining  steer  was  dainty  and  delicate  about  his  eating 
and  seldom  showed  signs  of  having  enjoyed  or  made  good  use  of  his  meal. 
He  had  that  dull  "hang-dog"  look  that  always  accompanies  slight 
grudging,  and  inefficient  expenditure  of  energy. 

These  evidences  of  better  gaining  capacit)^  seemed  to  stand  out  more 
clearly  during  the  feeding  process  or  after  a  closer  acquaintance  secured 
by  actual  every  day  contact  with  the  steers  than  in  the  yards  as  feeders. 
This  suggests  the  importance  of  the  great  advantage  of  breeding  the 


1903.]  FATTENING  STEERS.  201 

feeders  which  one  finishes.  A  system  of  beef  production  that  involves 
the  breeding  and  finishing  of  the  steers  by  the  same  individual  gives 
opportunity  to  discard  the  feeders  which  do  not  promise  well  before  too 
much  expensive  feed  has  been  wasted  in  trying  to  finish  them  for 
the  market. 

CONCLUSIONS. 

1.  More  rapid  and  much  larger  gains  may  be  secured  on  the  better 
than  on  the  more  common  grades. 

2.  The  results  of  this  experiment  clearly  show  that  when  the  various 
grades  of  beef  cattle  are  put  in  the  best  marketable  condition  there  is 
a  very  definite  relation  between  the  percentages  of  dressed  beef  and  the 
grade  of  cattle  involved.    The  better  the  grade  of  cattle  the  higher  the 
percentages  of  dressed  beef. 

3.  Low  grade  cattle  carry  larger  percentages  of  internal  fat  than 
the  better  bred  ones,  while  there  appears  to  be  a  more  abundant  and  more 
evenly  distributed  layer  of  surface  fat  on  the  better  bred  steers. 

4.  As  the  differences  between  feeders  tend  to  disappear  as  the 
feeding  process  goes  on,  the  differences  in  quality  between  the  various 
grades  of  feeding  cattle  are  more  pronounced  than  such  differences  be- 
tween the  various  grades  of  beef  or  fat  cattle.     Quality  is  the  more 
important  in  feeding  cattle;  condition  in  fat  cattle. 

5.  Primarily  this  experiment  was  outlined  to  determine  the  relation 
between  the  grade  of  feeding  steers  and  their  "feeding  qualities";  that 
is,  whether  the  quality  of  a  feeder  determines  his  capacity  for  making 
gains,  his  ability  to  use  feed  economically,  and  the  nature  of  'the  gains 
made.     However,  both  the  market  and  slaughter  tests  of  the  various 
grades  as  finished  clearly  indicate  that  to  the  packer  and  butcher  con- 
dition is  of  first  importance. 

6.  The  grade  of  cattle  the  finishing  of  which  will  return  to  the 
cattle  feeder  the  greatest  profit  will  depend  upon  the  following  con- 
siderations : 

(a)  The  relative  ability  of  the  various  grades  to  use  feed  for  the 
production  of  gain  and  finish  as  shown  by  the  data  in  this  bulletin. 
See  Table  7. 

(b)  The  relative  cost  of  the  various  grades  of  feeding  cattle. 

(c)  Cost  of  feed. 

(d)  The  method  of  feeding  and  time  of  marketing. 

(e)  The  range  in  prices  between  prime  and  common  rough  steers  or 
between  the  highest  and  lowest  grades  of  beef  cattle. 

7.  The  greater  the  cost  of  the  feed  used,  the  greater  is  the  advan- 
tage in  favor  of  the  better  grades,  both  because  under  normal  market 
conditions,  in  these  grades  the  gains  and  finish  are  put  on  with  less 
relative  feed  consumption  than  in  the  lower  ones,  although  this  dif- 
ference is  less  marked  in  the  inferior  than  in  the  intermediate  grades 


202  BULLETIN  No.  90.  [December, 

and  because  the  cost  of  feed  is  a  larger  factor  in  the  feeding  of  the 
lower  than  the  higher  grades. 

8.  The  greater  the  spread  in  the  market  between  the  various  grades 
of  feeders,  the  more  is  the  advantage  in  favor  of  the  commoner  grades. 
As  a  rule  the  price  of  common  rough  steers  fluctuates  less  than  the  price 
for  prime  steers  and  the  price  of  the  inferior  and  common  grades  of 
feeders  varies  less  than  those  of  the  choice  and  fancy  grades. 

9.  A  concentrated  ration  and  shorter  feeding  period  tend  to  favor 
the  feeding  of  the  lower  grades,  that  is,  a  ration  with  a  wide  nutritive 
ratio  like  corn  and  timothy  hay  or  straw  without  the  addition  of  a 
nitrogenous  concentrate  or  roughage  and  where  the  concentrate  com- 
prises a  large  percentage  of  the  ration  would  favor  cattle  of  the  lower 
grades  because  they  are  older  and  the  process  of  finishing  is  largely  a 
process  of  fattening. 

Again  prices  for  the  lower  grades  of  fat  or  beef  cattle  are  more 
or  less  affected  by  range  and  holiday  competition  and  are  usually  rela- 
tively low  at  such  seasons. 

10.  Older  cattle  of  the  more  common  grades  can  undoubtedly  be  put 
in  marketable  condition  on  a  shorter  full  feed  period  than  can  younger 
cattle  of  the  same  weight  which  would  grade  higher,  because  the  older 
the  cattle  the  less  the  increase  in  weight  required  to  finish  them. 

11.  The  greater  the  spread  in  the  market  between  the  various  grades 
of  fat  steers  the  more  is  the  advantage  in  favor  of  the  better  grades. 

12.  Opportunities  for  larger  profits,  and  losses  as  well,  lie  with 
the  better  grades  of  feeders. 

13.  Steers  containing  high  percentages  of  beef  blood  possess  greater 
capacity  for  consuming  large  quantities  of  feed  than  steers  of  a  more 
common  grade,  especially  in  the  later  weeks. 

14.  Age  and  condition  as  well  as  quality  are  important  factors  to  be 
reckoned  with  in  the  management  of  the  various  grades  of  feeding  cattle. 
Speaking  generally  of  the  offerings  of  feeding  cattle  at  any  of  our  lead- 
ing markets  it  is  safe  to  say  that  the  better  the  quality  and  condition 
the  younger  the  cattle.    In  securing  900  to  1,000  pound  feeding  cattle 
of  the  more  common  grades  one  is  bound  to  get  cattle  of  advanced  age, 
say  three  years  old  at  least.    Choice  and  fancy  feeders  of  these  weights 
can  be  secured  in  short  two-year-old  cattle. 

15.  Steers  of  all  grades  may  be  finished  or  put  in  good  marketable 
condition  without  carrying  them  to  a  point  of  fatness  which  necessitates 
small  gains  for  food  consumed. 

.    16.     The  margins  necessary  to  protect  against  loss  in  finishing  the 
various  grades  of  feeders  are  dependent  upon: 

(a)  The  grade  and  cost  of  the  cattle. 

(b)  The  price  of  feeds. 

(c)  The  initial  weight  of  the  cattle. 

(d)  The  length  of  the  feeding  period. 


1903.]  FATTENING  STEERS.  203 

17.  The  lower  the  price  at  which  feeding  cattle  are  purchased, 
whether  because  of  prevailing  low  prices  for  feeders  or  because  of  the 
low  grade  of  the  cattle,  the  larger  must  be  the  margin  between  the  buy- 
ing and  selling  price  in  order  to  secure  protection  against  loss. 

18.  The  greater  the  cost  of  the  feed  necessary  for  finishing  feeders, 
the  larger  must  be  the  margin. 

19.  Feeding  cattle  of  heavy  weights  can  be  finished  profitably  on 
a  narrower  margin  than  can  light  weight  feeders. 

20.  Feeding  cattle  which  require  an  extended  feeding  period  for 
finishing  require  a  larger  margin  than  do  feeders  which  can  be  matured 
in  a  shorter  time. 

GENERAL  OBSERVATIONS. 

Beef  production  on  an  extensive  scale  is  an  enterprise  in  which  the 
uninformed  and  inexperienced  can  not  afford  to  engage.  For  several 
years  it  has  been  developing  into  a  more  complex  and  difficult,  and 
therefore  a  more  hazardous  business.  Conditions  as  to  market  price  of 
feeding  and  fat  cattle  and  cost  of  feeds  have  never  been  identical 
during  any  two  consecutive  years  and  seldom  more  than  similar  at 
irregular  intervals.  Thus  the  man  who  masters  the  science  and  art 
of  beef  production  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  it  profitable  is  a  master 
indeed. 

It  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  the  problems  confronting  the  men 
who  market  a  large  part  of  the  fat  cattle  of  America  are  the  problems 
that  should  engage  the  attention  of  the  investigator.  It  is  estimated 
that  85  percent  of  the  native  beef  cattle  marketed  in  Chicago  have  been 
previously  bought  as  feeders  and  finished  by  cattle  feeders  who  do  not 
raise  the  cattle  they  feed.  In  most  respects  the  improvement  in  beef 
cattle  has  been  along  lines  calculated  to  render  them  more  valuable  and 
profitable  to  cattle  raisers  who  breed  and  develop  the  cattle  they  finish 
for  the  block,  rather  than  to  render  them  especially  fitted  for  the  enter- 
prise engaged  in  by  so  many  of  our  cattle  men,  namely,  that  of  buying  in 
the  market  or  on  the  range,  feeders  that  have  been  grown  and  developed 
to  the  point  of  finishing.  To  be  more  specific  it  may  be  said  that  the 
improvement  in  beef  cattle  has  been  along  the  lines  of  earlier  maturity, 
refinement  of  form,  and  reduction  of  the  percentage  of  bone  and  other 
products  of  the  steer  less  valuable  than  beef.  Thus  it  may  appear  on 
first  thought  that  breeders  have  lost  sight  of  their  greatest  opportunity 
by  not  rendering  their  cattle  pre-eminently  the  cattle  for  the  feed  lot 
no  matter  what  the  varying  conditions  affecting  this  enterprise  may 
happen  to  be.  More  careful  consideration  of  the  subject,  however,  will 
surely  convince  the  student  of  beef  production  that  all  these  years  of 
improvement  in  beef  cattle  have  not  been  in  vain,  for  some  one  must 
breed  and  rear  the  calves  that  will  eventually  find  their  way  to  the  feed 
lot  and  subsequently  to  market.  All  conditions  indicate  that  ultimately 


204  BULLETIN  No.  90.  [December, 

more  of  the  steers  fed  in  the  corn  belt  will  be  reared  there.  Evidence 
of  the  superiority  of  the  well  bred  steer  for  this  purpose  is  too  manifest 
to  require  discussion  at  this  time. 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  breeders  have  improved  the  early 
maturing  quality  of  beef  cattle  to  a  greater  extent  than  any  other,  the 
wide  variations  in  the  gains  of  individual  steers  within  the  grades  of 
feeding  cattle  used  in  this  experiment  point  strongly  to  the  possibility 
of  still  further  improvement  along  this  line.  Breeders  of  beef  cattle 
should  not  be  slow  to  take  advantage  of  this  opportunity. 

Incidentally  the  results  of  this  experiment  show  which  of  the  six 
grades  of  feeding  cattle  was  fed  with  the  least  loss  under  conditions 
which  have  prevailed  during  the  winter  of  1902-'03,  and  the  data  will  also 
afford  a  basis  for  computing  probable  profits  under  varying  market  con- 
ditions. Experienced  feeders  believe  that  the  largest  factors  in  deter- 
mining the  relative  profits  in  feeding  the  different  grades  of  cattle 
are  local  and  market  conditions.  It  is  obvious  that  cattle  feeders  can 
not  control  the  markets  for  their  cattle;  they  should  understand  fully, 
however,  the  bearing  which  market  conditions  have  upon  the  question  of 
what  grade  of  feeding  cattle  is  likely  to  return  to  the  feeder  the  great- 
est profits  in  any  given  year.  The  big  questions  are,  of  course,  the 
relative  rapidity,  extent,  nature,  and  cost  of  gains  with  the  various 
grades. 

When  prices  rule  low  in  the  beef  cattle  class  and  the  market  is  dull  and 
has  a  downward  tendency,  the  range  of  prices  between  prime  steers  and 
common  rough  steers  is  narrow,  and  as  a  result,  condition  or  fat  is  more 
important  than  quality  or  beef  blood.  As  a  rule,  prices  of  common 
rough  steers  in  the  beef  cattle  class  fluctuate  less  than  the  prices  for 
prime  steers.  Hence,  it  will  be  seen  that  in  general  there  is  less  liabil- 
ity to  large  losses  from  market  fluctuations  in  the  feeding  of  the  com- 
moner than  the  better  grades  of  feeding  cattle.  On  the  other  hand  the 
chances  for  making  large  profits  are  undoubtedly  greatest  with  the  bet- 
ter grades.  As  a  feeding  proposition  there  is  perhaps  a  larger  element 
of  speculation  involved  in  the  handling  of  the  well-bred  than  the  com- 
mon-bred steer.  It  is  best  for  the  beginner  to  handle  a  few  loads  of  the 
commoner  kinds,  as  the  chances  for  heavy  losses  are  thereby  reduced  to 
the  minimum,  and  the  capital  involved  is  not  large.  It  is  well,  however, 
to  bear  in  mind  that  cattle  of  common  and  inferior  grades  must  be  pur- 
chased at  a  low  price  or  what  has  been  said  will  not  be  true,  for  under 
ordinary  conditions  the  margin  for  profit  in  feeding  low  grade  cattle  is 
slight. 

By  reducing  the  corn  fed  to  meal  and  mixing  same  with  roughage  the 
importance  of  pork  production  as  a  factor  in  cattle  feeding  is  minimized. 
Notwithstanding  this,  the  pig,  even  under  such  conditions,  should  not 
be  eliminated.  Properly  managed  he  may  return  a  credit  to  each  steer 
fed  of  approximately  $2.00. 


1903.] 


FATTENING  STEERS. 


205 


206 


BULLETIN  No.  90. 


[December, 


1903.] 


FATTENING  STEERS. 


207 


208 


BULLETIN  No.  90. 


[December, 


1903.] 


FATTENING  STEERS. 


209 


210 


BULLETIN  No.  90. 


[December, 


1903.] 


FATTENING  STEERS. 


211 


212 


BULLETIN  No.  90. 


[December, 


1903.] 


FATTENING  STEEKS. 


213 


214 


BULLETIN  No.  90. 


[December, 


1903.] 


FATTENING  STEERS. 


215 


216 


BULLETIN  No.  90. 


[December, 


1903.] 


FATTENING  STEERS. 


217 


PLATE  13.     THE  INFERIOR  FEEDER  THAT  GAINED  BUT  80  POUNDS  IN  FOUR  MONTHS, 

AS  MARKETED. 


PLATE  14.     THE  FANCY  SELECTED  FEEDER  THAT  GAINED  NEARLY  FOUR  POUNDS 

A  DAY  FOR  FOUR  MONTHS.     PHOTOGRAPH  TAKEN  A  FEW 

DAYS  BEFORE  MARKETING. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 


